 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
aperture .5
blur_samples 50
confidence .96
variance 1/512
and 4x4 area light. Blur's still a bit grainy, but it's not that
bad, and I figure at 170dpi it'll make kind of a dither, which'll
probably make it more 'realistic' anyway. Actually I could probably
turn
them down a tad more.
Render stats:
C:\povray\Pov-Ray for Windows v3.1\lego\phalanx_blur.pov Statistics,
Resolution 510 x 340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pixels: 173400 Samples: 2962497 Smpls/Pxl: 17.08
Rays: 30236804 Saved: 145203 Max Level: 44/50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 1740806861 195736839 11.24
Cone/Cylinder 2425439254 37286708 1.54
CSG Intersection 751186892 20448237 2.72
CSG Merge 135196934 8189183 6.06
CSG Union 192948719 21103108 10.94
Disc 3181558262 2538847386 79.80
Height Field 3569553172 8592559 0.24
Height Field Box 3569553172 38076685 1.07
Height Field Triangle 259395716 43291323 16.69
Height Field Block 50066955 49569513 99.01
Height Field Cell 426246173 151586885 35.56
Plane 77599940 3067279 3.95
Polygon 115450 1226 1.06
Prism 61612262 8350435 13.55
Prism Bound 315448833 175036261 55.49
Quartic/Poly 268332 238839 89.01
Sphere 224922051 5589542 2.49
Superellipsoid 3509270 1066723 30.40
Torus 675920473 26084592 3.86
Torus Bound 675920473 31628486 4.68
Bounding Object 122846609 29670703 24.15
Bounding Box 1306876498 287129450 21.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roots tested: 49098515 eliminated: 1009742
Calls to Noise: 267084304 Calls to DNoise: 247288537
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadow Ray Tests: 92247059 Succeeded: 10054586
Reflected Rays: 764017
Transmitted Rays: 26510290
I-Stack overflows: 209084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smallest Alloc: 26 bytes Largest: 41696
Peak memory used: 108424091 bytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 22.0 seconds (22 seconds)
Time For Trace: 7 hours 27 minutes 35.0 seconds (26855 seconds)
Total Time: 7 hours 27 minutes 57.0 seconds (26877 seconds)
Returned from renderer
POV-Ray finished
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'phalanx_blur_510.jpg' (60 KB)
Preview of image 'phalanx_blur_510.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ooo, I like the Phalanx (the original and this one)!
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
