 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I thought of that and I'll probably give it a try, though it will probably
change the mood a bit, unless I make everything shadowless.
"ingo" <ing### [at] home nl> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] povrayorg...
> in news:3b514bcb@news.povray.org Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> > So if I want to render a super high quality one I don't have a hell
> > of a lot of room left to get red of those artefacts, especially
> > considering count maxes out at 1600.
> >
>
> Assuming this is a no_light_source pic, why not put in an area_light?
> It would help a lot with the artefacts, without changing the mood of
> the image.
>
> Ingo
>
> --
> Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
> Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One thing that bothers me is that the glass cylinder is just crying out for
photons but without a light source photons don't work. And I am trying my
best to resist putting in a light source;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> One thing that bothers me is that the glass cylinder is just crying out for
> photons but without a light source photons don't work. And I am trying my
> best to resist putting in a light source;-)
I never tried it, but wouldn't light groups be a solution for that?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> Yet More Pure Radiosity Fun:-)
>
> I was talking about making a poster of one of my images, I'm thinking this
> one would look good.
>
> pretrace_start 0.01
> pretrace_end 0.005
> recursion_limit 2
> error_bound 0.4
> nearest_count 10
> count 900
>
> So if I want to render a super high quality one I don't have a hell of a lot
> of room left to get red of those artefacts, especially considering count
> maxes out at 1600.
If you have a lot of time and a ton of RAM to burn, you can try dropping
error-bound to some absurdly small figure (.03 or thereabouts). You'll
still have artifacts, but with any luck (and a bit of tweaking to find
the right numbers) they'll be so small that you won't be able to see them.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, a couple other suggestions while I'm at it: darken the pigment on
the metal ball (diffuse*pigment+reflection should be <= 1 for shiny
metals), and while there's no brightness setting for photons as there is
for radiosity (and shouldn't there be?), you could try a very weak light
with a very strong caustic for the glass cylinder.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Oh, a couple other suggestions while I'm at it: darken the pigment on
> the metal ball (diffuse*pigment+reflection should be <= 1 for shiny
> metals),
Hmm I could raise the brightness value above the default in the finish.
> and while there's no brightness setting for photons as there is
> for radiosity (and shouldn't there be?), you could try a very weak light
> with a very strong caustic for the glass cylinder.
I might give that a try, I tried that with photons but of course, as you
said, without a "brightness" setting you can't see any caustics with a very
dim light.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you have a lot of time and a ton of RAM to burn, you can try dropping
> error-bound to some absurdly small figure (.03 or thereabouts). You'll
> still have artifacts, but with any luck (and a bit of tweaking to find
> the right numbers) they'll be so small that you won't be able to see them.
My experience has been that in scenes with pure radiosity lowering
error_bound does more harm than good. Usually you get thousands of
artefacts, like there are hundreds of light sources casting hundreds of
shadows or something. You can't go below about 0.4 before the scene becomes
unsaveable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I never tried it, but wouldn't light groups be a solution for that?
Could you please explain what you mean? I've never used light groups.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> > If you have a lot of time and a ton of RAM to burn, you can try dropping
> > error-bound to some absurdly small figure (.03 or thereabouts). You'll
> > still have artifacts, but with any luck (and a bit of tweaking to find
> > the right numbers) they'll be so small that you won't be able to see them.
>
> My experience has been that in scenes with pure radiosity lowering
> error_bound does more harm than good. Usually you get thousands of
> artefacts, like there are hundreds of light sources casting hundreds of
> shadows or something. You can't go below about 0.4 before the scene becomes
> unsaveable.
Well, yes. But as the artifacts become smaller than a pixel, they
eventually "disappear", averaged out of existence.
Like I said, you need a lot of time and a ton of RAM to burn. ^^;
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Lake wrote:
>
> Could you please explain what you mean? I've never used light groups.
I meant having a light group with one light for the cylinder to get the
photons, but turning it off for the rest of the scene. For the syntax of
light groups see the megapov docu.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
