 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Remco de Korte
Subject: Re: What du you think about my masonry? (jpg 51,3 kbbu)
Date: 13 Feb 2001 10:33:51
Message: <3A8953DC.24DD89FC@xs4all.nl>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks good, especially the mortar but 22 minutes for such a small piece
doesn't seem very practical.
Is it possible to use this in larger objects?
Remco
Marc-Hendrik Bremer wrote:
>
> Jpg-compression was not very friendly to the roughness of the mortar, but I
> think, this one is big enough for a technical-study.
> I wonder if it's worth to follow this path further (and which way to go),
> cause this simple scene with aa 0.3 needed 22 m 19 s on my PII 450 MHz (with
> some other stuff running as well). It's one isosurface, using the
> brick-pattern as a function and Jeff Lee's technique to give the bricks
> individual colours. The textures still needs a lot of work.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Marc-Hendrik
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Bricktest.jpg
> Bricktest.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Kress
Subject: Re: What du you think about my masonry? (jpg 51,3 kbbu)
Date: 13 Feb 2001 13:45:42
Message: <3a8980d6$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Brick needs to project farther out of the mortar. The brick looks like it
is flush with the mortar.
Jim
"Marc-Hendrik Bremer" <Mar### [at] t-online de> wrote in message
news:3a82f9e4@news.povray.org...
> Jpg-compression was not very friendly to the roughness of the mortar, but
I
> think, this one is big enough for a technical-study.
> I wonder if it's worth to follow this path further (and which way to go),
> cause this simple scene with aa 0.3 needed 22 m 19 s on my PII 450 MHz
(with
> some other stuff running as well). It's one isosurface, using the
> brick-pattern as a function and Jeff Lee's technique to give the bricks
> individual colours. The textures still needs a lot of work.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Marc-Hendrik
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Marc-Hendrik Bremer
Subject: Re: What du you think about my masonry? (jpg 51,3 kbbu)
Date: 13 Feb 2001 14:05:07
Message: <3a898563@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Kress schrieb in Nachricht <3a8980d6$1@news.povray.org>...
>Brick needs to project farther out of the mortar. The brick looks like it
>is flush with the mortar.
>
That's just the orthographic camera in conjunction with a shadowless light
(the later adds more to the effect). In deed I had to reduce the distance
when I switched the shadows on.
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Marc-Hendrik Bremer
Subject: Re: What du you think about my masonry? (jpg 51,3 kbbu)
Date: 13 Feb 2001 14:26:57
Message: <3a898a81$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte schrieb in Nachricht <3A8953DC.24DD89FC@xs4all.nl>...
>It looks good, especially the mortar but 22 minutes for such a small piece
>doesn't seem very practical.
>Is it possible to use this in larger objects?
>
Thanks! Rendertime got even worth when changed some things (like some more
warps to distort the granite-bumps a bit oh, and when I switched the shadows
on, that took also it's time). I had once an hour for this piece of masonry
(without anti-aliasing that is). But I speeded things up a bit afterwards
and think the rendertime is quite okay. Although it's just one small piece
it covers most of the 640x480 pixels.
I'm using it now as part of another object and rendertimes are not that bad,
as it covers only part of the image (some 14 min for the whole scene).
Things slow down when it comes to the bricks, but I'm already used to it -
the sign in my last scene rendered for a full night.
Marc-Hendrik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
