 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ooo, I like the Phalanx (the original and this one)!
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricy net> wrote in message
news:3B4A5DC2.FAF35F20@faricy.net...
> The landscape is a little featureless, but it already goes at 7pps and
> takes a lot of memory.
Featureless? David, you're dealing with LEGOs :-)
Cool image...but it seems like the castle should be in the center of the
view. Hey, castle in the center, with a row of guys on either side! That'd
look real nifty :-)
Anyways, good job...the focal blur gives it a nice, dramatic touch :-)
...and by the way, what processor do you run it on to get 7 pps? If you're
getting that on an Athlon or something, there no WAY I'm using focal blur in
my scenes (I'm still on a P2-400, hehe) ;-)
-Ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3B4A5DC2.FAF35F20@faricy.net>, David Fontaine says...
> This goes _slow_!! I want to render it at 30"x20" 170dpi. That's 100x
> the current pixels... 750 hours?! That's probably 40 days on and off.
>
> I actually had it started at that res, but after 20% or so seeing it at
> that level of detail I decided to change some lighting a bit and
> actually noticed some finish{} errors. :( (It was supposed to be
> rendering too while I was out East looking at colleges*, but my brother
> didn't run it.) *not Harvard!
>
> The landscape is a little featureless, but it already goes at 7pps and
> takes a lot of memory.
The blur seems a bit too much IMHO: only the last figure is more or less
sharp, or is it intended that way?
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> [Image]
I know you wanted comments on the focal blur, but...
Before you start on your gigantic render, you might want to put some
randomness in the position of the soldiers' arms. Even the best trained
marines can't line up their rifles EXACTLY when parading, so I strongly
suspect that a phalanx on the move wouldn't do so either. It would add
to the realism of the scene (if such a thing can be said of Lego
characters!). You also need a flag-bearer.
On another note, why have a drawbridge if there's no moat? Wouldn't
heavy oak doors suffice?
Very nice clouds, BTW! Image map?
--
Francois Labreque | Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a snooze
flabreque | button on a cat who wants breakfast.
@ | - Unattributed quote from rec.humor.funny
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> This goes _slow_!! I want to render it at 30"x20" 170dpi. That's 100x
> the current pixels... 750 hours?! That's probably 40 days on and off.
>
> [...]
Nice, but it really does not look that slow. How about post processed
focal blur? (although this is somewhat problematic with larger renders)
There is probably also some room for optimization through clever grouping
of the different objects.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Out of curiousity, what speed machine was this on?
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3B4A5DC2.FAF35F20@faricy.net...
> This goes _slow_!! I want to render it at 30"x20" 170dpi. That's 100x
> the current pixels... 750 hours?! That's probably 40 days on and off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ian Burgmyer wrote:
>
> Featureless? David, you're dealing with LEGOs :-)
;)
> Cool image...but it seems like the castle should be in the center of the
> view. Hey, castle in the center, with a row of guys on either side! That'd
> look real nifty :-)
Eww, too symmetrical...
> Anyways, good job...the focal blur gives it a nice, dramatic touch :-)
tnx
> ...and by the way, what processor do you run it on to get 7 pps? If you're
> getting that on an Athlon or something, there no WAY I'm using focal blur in
> my scenes (I'm still on a P2-400, hehe) ;-)
P3-450
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
>
> The blur seems a bit too much IMHO: only the last figure is more or less
> sharp, or is it intended that way?
Actually, the castle is in focus. But you're right, it seems a bit odd
that the phalanx comes closer to the center of the pic but is out of
focus. I'll try rotating the camera.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> I know you wanted comments on the focal blur, but...
>
> Before you start on your gigantic render, you might want to put some
> randomness in the position of the soldiers' arms. Even the best trained
> marines can't line up their rifles EXACTLY when parading, so I strongly
> suspect that a phalanx on the move wouldn't do so either. It would add
> to the realism of the scene (if such a thing can be said of Lego
> characters!). You also need a flag-bearer.
Hmm, yeah...
> On another note, why have a drawbridge if there's no moat? Wouldn't
> heavy oak doors suffice?
Look very closely, there is a moat... and it's actually the right width
for the drawbridge! And there's a green/gray stone foundation under the
castle you can just barely see. I moved the camera down to be about
eye-level with the pahalanx, but the moat disapperead...
> Very nice clouds, BTW! Image map?
Jaime Vives Piqueres' method.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> Nice, but it really does not look that slow. How about post processed
> focal blur? (although this is somewhat problematic with larger renders)
That's cheating! ;)
> There is probably also some room for optimization through clever grouping
> of the different objects.
Like how? Grouping doesn't matter for just a big pile of objects I
thought. Maybe I can speed up individual pieces though...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Povray wrote:
>
> Out of curiousity, what speed machine was this on?
P3-450, 128M
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
