|
 |
Hmm, I looked at the code quickly. You might be able to speed up the render
a tiny tiny bit if you change the boxes (holding spherical media) into
spheres. Then you could change the media sampling parameters and speed it up
a bit. Give the sphere a radius of slightly more than one, since there's
turbulence in the media.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have denser media? In my experience, although
wax is somewhat translucent, it's pretty dense nonetheless. All this
subsurface scattering we're talking about, shouldn't it be happening mainly
at the *surface* of the object?
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
"JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:3bcb1895$1@news.povray.org...
> Posted in p.b.s-f.
> Thank you all for the comments.
>
> --
> Jonathan.
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
With denser media the candles looked too bright.
And using boxes instead of spheres with spherical media is something ordered
by my religious believes.
--
Jonathan.
"Slime" <noo### [at] hotmailcom> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bcb4e53$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmm, I looked at the code quickly. You might be able to speed up the
render
> a tiny tiny bit if you change the boxes (holding spherical media) into
> spheres. Then you could change the media sampling parameters and speed it
up
> a bit. Give the sphere a radius of slightly more than one, since there's
> turbulence in the media.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to have denser media? In my experience,
although
> wax is somewhat translucent, it's pretty dense nonetheless. All this
> subsurface scattering we're talking about, shouldn't it be happening
mainly
> at the *surface* of the object?
>
> - Slime
>
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
> "JRG" <jrg### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:3bcb1895$1@news.povray.org...
> > Posted in p.b.s-f.
> > Thank you all for the comments.
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
