normally until the last 20 lines or so.  It took a couple hours (or less) to
get to the part where the reflection of the nearby hillside shows up in the
water.  From there it was doing one line every few minutes and steadily got
slower.
I do very little with reflection_blur but I suspect that could be why, the
combination of it and isosurface.  No kidding, huh?
Some 4 hours to finish for this size, was hoping to get a much larger one
made quicker, once it's ready.  Not so sure now  :-)

Bob H.
--
http://users.aol.com/persistenceofv/

Post a reply to this message

... so here it is this time, for what it's worth.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lakeview0.jpg' (25 KB)

Preview of image 'lakeview0.jpg'

"Bob H." wrote:
> 

> normally until the last 20 lines or so.  It took a couple hours (or less) to
> get to the part where the reflection of the nearby hillside shows up in the
> water.  From there it was doing one line every few minutes and steadily got
> slower.

That's fairly normal for isosurface & reflection, reflection blur even
more.  Usually in such a scene i would expect the horizon part to be quite
slow too.  

Before the last 20 lines there is not much of the isosurface to be
reflected so things are probably quite fast.  I would estimate that the
mountain reflections in the lake are the part which is slowest.  

> I do very little with reflection_blur but I suspect that could be why, the
> combination of it and isosurface.  No kidding, huh?
> Some 4 hours to finish for this size, was hoping to get a much larger one
> made quicker, once it's ready.  Not so sure now  :-)
> 

Just add some radiosity and you will find everything before extremely fast
:-)

Nice scene BTW, the clouds look quite good, just the rim of the lake seems
a bit steep.  

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

Bob H. <omn### [at] msncom> wrote:

> Main reason for posting this Bryce-like ?ender is to say that this went very
> normally until the last 20 lines or so.  It took a couple hours (or less) to
> get to the part where the reflection of the nearby hillside shows up in the
> water.  From there it was doing one line every few minutes and steadily got
> slower.
> I do very little with reflection_blur but I suspect that could be why, the
> combination of it and isosurface.  No kidding, huh?
> Some 4 hours to finish for this size, was hoping to get a much larger one
> made quicker, once it's ready.  Not so sure now  :-)

Hmm, not certain why you're even bothering with an iso.  The distance and
wave size mean that a surface normal would probably be more than sufficient
for this image, even if blown up to a very large size.

Also, I wonder why you are using blurred reflection, since reflections on
water are pretty sharp.  If you want the blurring, then I'd think you'd want
rougher water, not blurred reflec.  So I guess I wonder why you're using
these features in this instance.

It's a very nice pic, all the same.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3acc6583$1@news.povray.org...

Which is the iso - the water, the landscape, or both (I'm assuming the
water)?

Post a reply to this message

"Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
news:3acc871f@news.povray.org...
>
> Hmm, not certain why you're even bothering with an iso.  The distance and
> wave size mean that a surface normal would probably be more than
sufficient
> for this image, even if blown up to a very large size.

Huh?  :-)  Oh!  You think the water is an isosurface!  Ha ha.  Well no, it
is not.

> Also, I wonder why you are using blurred reflection, since reflections on
> water are pretty sharp.  If you want the blurring, then I'd think you'd
want
> rougher water, not blurred reflec.  So I guess I wonder why you're using
> these features in this instance.

The blurring is taking place of mere normals or displacement (isosurface?).
Figured I'd give it a try for effect.  I have to change the amounts the
three water textures have I can tell because it doesn't have smooth and
rough areas like it had before.

Thanks, glad you liked it anyway.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

I knew I should have said the water is only a textured plane.

Bob H.

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3acc8d0d@news.povray.org...
>
> Which is the iso - the water, the landscape, or both (I'm assuming the
> water)?

Post a reply to this message

"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3ACC6DB6.AA3DA529@gmx.de...
>
> That's fairly normal for isosurface & reflection, reflection blur even
> more.  Usually in such a scene i would expect the horizon part to be quite
> slow too.

Indeed it was.  Only the sky and midway down the lake was it what I'd call
"fast".

> Before the last 20 lines there is not much of the isosurface to be
> reflected so things are probably quite fast.  I would estimate that the
> mountain reflections in the lake are the part which is slowest.

Correct.

> Just add some radiosity and you will find everything before extremely fast
>
> Nice scene BTW, the clouds look quite good, just the rim of the lake seems
> a bit steep.

Believe me, I thought about using radiosity before I realized how slow it
gets at the last lines.
And thanks, making a shoreline is one of the intended additions, if I can
get it right.  I think it hasn't any scale much until I do.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Bob H. <omn### [at] msncom> wrote:

> "Geoff Wedig" <wed### [at] darwinepbicwruedu> wrote in message
> news:3acc871f@news.povray.org...
>>
>> Hmm, not certain why you're even bothering with an iso.  The distance and
>> wave size mean that a surface normal would probably be more than
> sufficient
>> for this image, even if blown up to a very large size.

> Huh?  :-)  Oh!  You think the water is an isosurface!  Ha ha.  Well no, it
> is not.

Ah!  I assumed that they were on the same object.  Oops.

>> Also, I wonder why you are using blurred reflection, since reflections on
>> water are pretty sharp.  If you want the blurring, then I'd think you'd
> want
>> rougher water, not blurred reflec.  So I guess I wonder why you're using
>> these features in this instance.

> The blurring is taking place of mere normals or displacement (isosurface?).
> Figured I'd give it a try for effect.  I have to change the amounts the
> three water textures have I can tell because it doesn't have smooth and
> rough areas like it had before.

Ah, ok, experimenting.  Hmm.  Not sure what to suggest.

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

In article <3acc6661@news.povray.org>, Bob H. says...
> ... so here it is this time, for what it's worth.
> 
This is tantalizingly small, but I understand that you would be in 
trouble if you rendered a larger one :)
-- 
Regards,  Sander

Post a reply to this message