Norbert Kern wrote:
> 
> The problem with the grass is its need for memory. First aand second version
> had 90000 blades. Now the scene uses 200 Mbyte less memory with "only" 48000
> blades. I have defined 1 Gbyte swap space, so I have to be careful.
> 
> My old PII has 224 Mbyte ram.
> The next model will be bought soon (dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon with 1 GB
> DDR sdram).
> 

That explains why you are not able to use radiosity, memory use would be
much more intensive then and swapping is quite impossible, even if the
total amount of memory used is not larger.

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

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:51:44 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote...
> I use good old photoshop. Is it good at compression?

Not compared to some other utils out there.

An old DOS package called SEA can give better looking results with a 
smaller file size.

Look on http://www.photodex.com

There's also a thread here in p.b.i as follows which may help you.  
Always assuming you can find it :)

Subject: Help with JPEG conversion
From: Kevin Jackson-Mead <jac### [at] mindspringcom>
Newsgroups: povray.binaries.images
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:46:03 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.6.75
Message-ID: <39A6DB0B.72686220@mindspring.com>

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

> I agree with your comments about the fill light.

> 
> The problem with the grass is its need for memory. First aand second version
> had 90000 blades. Now the scene uses 200 Mbyte less memory with "only" 48000
> blades. I have defined 1 Gbyte swap space, so I have to be careful.
> 
> My old PII has 224 Mbyte ram.
> The next model will be bought soon (dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon with 1 GB
> DDR sdram).

Not to poke holes in your dreams, but why not just go for the 1.33Ghz 
Athlon, and save a bit of money towards the memory for the sake of 66mhz 
(What am I saying?!  My first PC capable of running POV only had 
66Mhz...)

Oh well, just a thought.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

(little bit OT)
I said "dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon".
But let us be rational. I have had renders which lasted up to 3 weeks.

of my monitor and counting minutes for rendering a single line.
I swear, every second counts.
Therefore I will pay about 100 Euro (ca. 83 $) for 5 % speed gain. This are
only 4 to 5 % of the whole desktop. I think, its worth.

Norbert


"Jamie Davison" <jam### [at] ntlworldcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.1591cb5bf1a9006e989949@news.povray.org...

>
> Not to poke holes in your dreams, but why not just go for the 1.33Ghz
> Athlon, and save a bit of money towards the memory for the sake of 66mhz
> (What am I saying?!  My first PC capable of running POV only had
> 66Mhz...)
>
> Oh well, just a thought.
>
> Bye for now,
>      Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

It is just my two cents, but I think you should concentrate on the
picture and not on submitting it. It is a really stunning picture, so
natural, so realistic. And of course it would become even more so with
the addition of some insects. But it would still be a landscape
picture and not an insects picture.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:20:49 +0200, you wrote:
>definitively there have to be insects and they should be visible.

Indeed. But you should somehow put the focus on them. Insects are
small. If you want to have one close-up, and still have a realistic
picture, you'll have to use focal blur... and that would be a great
loss, considering all the details that will be lost.

>I had two solutions in mind.
>First a part of a tree with bark and a bug climbing the trunk.

Or an insect half-drowned in a sap drop? That would make for an
interesting raytracing showcase. Maybe when you buy that Athlon...

>Second a big flower like a hemlock and a bug and ants.

How about a branch in close-up and a spider web with a spider and a
fly in it? Or maybe a caterpillar pretending to be a piece of bark? Or
a cocoons of sorts. Two fighting (or mating) praying beetles. You can
also try a cliche, a fish catching a mosquito.



That's precisely what I am pointing my finger at. You are obviously
very good in coding, modelling, texture and lighting. You have to be
at least as good in composition to make the picture so that the focus
is on the insect, it is large enough, and none of the detail is lost.

>So I have to choose a flying insect.

See my other suggestions. Maybe you could use a little spider hanging
on a thread somewhere in the lower-right part of the image.

>Since I have no experience with motion blur, I have a butterfly (or two) in
>my mind.

Try putting them on a water lily, two of them. The bright green and
white of the lily would make a great background for some vivid yellow
or red. Just a suggestion.

Once again, outstanding work!


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:32:07 +0200, "Norbert Kern"
<nor### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:

>Colour variation is very memory intensive and up to now, I have no
>convincing solution to this problem.

Put the whole grass in a union (not the triangles, the meshes :) ) and
give them an appropriate pigment. I think large-scale granite, or a
perlin-like average of a few bozos, would work great.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:19:32 +0200, Norbert Kern wrote...
> (little bit OT)
> I said "dreaming of a 1.4 Ghz Athlon".
> But let us be rational. I have had renders which lasted up to 3 weeks.

> of my monitor and counting minutes for rendering a single line.
> I swear, every second counts.
> Therefore I will pay about 100 Euro (ca. 83 $) for 5 % speed gain. This are
> only 4 to 5 % of the whole desktop. I think, its worth.

I suppose it's a matter of personal choice in the matter.

And on that note I shall shut up :)

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

Norbert Kern wrote:
> 


I would have expected it to use even more resources...

-- 
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

On 2001-06-14 19:42, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> It is just my two cents, but I think you should concentrate on the
> picture and not on submitting it. It is a really stunning picture, so
> natural, so realistic. And of course it would become even more so with
> the addition of some insects. But it would still be a landscape
> picture and not an insects picture.

Hmm ... how about about an insect picture without any insects visible?
Change the lighting so that it looks like early evening, and everybody
who doesn't hear the buzzing[1] of mosquitos lacks imagination :-)

	hp

[1] Ok, my English lets me down, and my dictionaries, too. What do you
call the sound that a mosquito makes?

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Wenn Buecher einen Verstaerker haetten,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | sollte der Leser hier die Boxen voll
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      | aufdrehen.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:15:49 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote...
> On 2001-06-14 19:42, Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> > It is just my two cents, but I think you should concentrate on the
> > picture and not on submitting it. It is a really stunning picture, so
> > natural, so realistic. And of course it would become even more so with
> > the addition of some insects. But it would still be a landscape
> > picture and not an insects picture.
> 
> Hmm ... how about about an insect picture without any insects visible?
> Change the lighting so that it looks like early evening, and everybody
> who doesn't hear the buzzing[1] of mosquitos lacks imagination :-)
> 
> 	hp
> 
> [1] Ok, my English lets me down, and my dictionaries, too. What do you
> call the sound that a mosquito makes?

Bloody annoying.

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message