"Jim Kress" <kre### [at] kressworkscom> wrote in message
news:3b32d0ba@news.povray.org...
> Here's another result using:
>
>    method 3
>    intervals 20
>    samples 3,5
>    confidence 0.999
>    variance 1/1000
>
> What's going on with this?  Looks like the sampling algorithm is not
> behaving properly.

I hadn't seen the number of layers your df3 might be made up of but that
intervals change suggests to me there are a few.   Nathan Kopp has made the
method 3 somehow figure the intervals out on it's own (I'm guessing) and
maybe what you really need to do is increase the samples.  I often use equal
numbers.  Perhaps a samples 10,10 is okay for you?  If not there's always
method 2 and samples 5,5 could possibly do well.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Thanks.  I'll give it a try.

Jim

"Bob H." <omn### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3b32f014@news.povray.org...
> "Jim Kress" <kre### [at] kressworkscom> wrote in message
> news:3b32d0ba@news.povray.org...
> > Here's another result using:
> >
> >    method 3
> >    intervals 20
> >    samples 3,5
> >    confidence 0.999
> >    variance 1/1000
> >
> > What's going on with this?  Looks like the sampling algorithm is not
> > behaving properly.
>
> I hadn't seen the number of layers your df3 might be made up of but that
> intervals change suggests to me there are a few.   Nathan Kopp has made
the
> method 3 somehow figure the intervals out on it's own (I'm guessing) and
> maybe what you really need to do is increase the samples.  I often use
equal
> numbers.  Perhaps a samples 10,10 is okay for you?  If not there's always
> method 2 and samples 5,5 could possibly do well.
>
> Bob H.
>
>

Post a reply to this message

OK.  It turns out that, although media is supposed to be contained within a
unit cube, it really isn't.

If you lok at my inc file, you'll see I used a unit cube box to contain the
media so it could be rendered.  Well, if I change the box specification from

 box{ <0,1>

to

 box{ <0,0,-2>, <2,2,2>

the problem goes away, as one can see in the attached image.  Hopefully this
does not indicate there is a bug in megapov.

Thanks for your suggestions!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'rohf_density_001_5,5_samples_intervals_10_bounding_box_fixed.jpg' (27 KB)

Preview of image 'rohf_density_001_5,5_samples_intervals_10_bounding_box_fixed.jpg'

"Jim Kress" <kre### [at] kressworkscom> wrote in message
news:3b337f3b@news.povray.org...
> OK.  It turns out that, although media is supposed to be contained within
a
> unit cube, it really isn't.
>
> If you lok at my inc file, you'll see I used a unit cube box to contain
the
> media so it could be rendered.  Well, if I change the box specification
from
>
>  box{ <0,1>
>
> to
>
>  box{ <0,0,-2>, <2,2,2>
>
> the problem goes away, as one can see in the attached image.  Hopefully
this
> does not indicate there is a bug in megapov.

I can't see that happening here, using spiral.df3 in place of your df3, the
media is contained within the 1 unit cube as described in the doc.
I thought perhaps it could be wave type but default is ramp_wave and looked
okay to me anyway. Most likely thing could be you are getting some sort of
perspective trouble.  Make your box transmit 0.5 instead of 1 and you can
see where the sides are.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Kress wrote:
> Attached is a volumetric rendering using media.  What is the best way
> (i.e. best quality for shortest rendering time) to get rid of the
> graininess and get nice, smooth colors?

I think it's quite pretty as is.

-- 
Anton Sherwood  --  br0### [at] p0b0xcom  --  http://ogre.nu/

Post a reply to this message

Thanks.

Jim

"Anton Sherwood" <bro### [at] poboxcom> wrote in message
news:3B3648D1.D868817C@pobox.com...
> Jim Kress wrote:
> > Attached is a volumetric rendering using media.  What is the best way
> > (i.e. best quality for shortest rendering time) to get rid of the
> > graininess and get nice, smooth colors?
>
> I think it's quite pretty as is.
>
> --
> Anton Sherwood  --  br0### [at] p0b0xcom  --  http://ogre.nu/

Post a reply to this message