 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kari Kivisalo" <pro### [at] luxlab com> wrote:
> > a feeling, that the focal blurring doesn't
> > really work as it should.
> >
> > Any idea anyone ?
>
> I have one. variance 0
Isn't 1/10240 low enough ? (ok, probably not)
But I can't say, that I understand, why the
variance should be the limit here, as in my
understanding this would also lead to "ban-
ding" on other places, too.
What I mean, does only appear when there is
a blurring into a pure white or pure black
color. (probably fully saturated colors are
also involved but I didn't test this)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bah, I could do that! ;-)
Actually, I could: my new include file can parse something like 50,000
objects/minute (with random rotation, scaling, and location)....
ON A PI 133 MHz!!
Plus, it can do interior and media in the objects. ANyone interested?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Try this scene also with variance 0. Also try ambient 100
to see how colors are clipped before dof calculations.
global_settings{assumed_gamma 1.0}
camera{
location <0,0,-10>
direction 2*z
up y right x
look_at<0,0,0>
aperture 2
blur_samples 100
focal_point <0,0,-2>
confidence 0.99
variance 1/10000
}
sphere{0,1 pigment{rgb 1} finish{ambient 1}}
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kari Kivisalo" <pro### [at] luxlabcom> wrote:
> Try this ...
Yeah ... I'm currently doing some tests with my own scene,
and I think somehow I understand the behaviour now. What I
could observe till now is, that samples is (of course) the
most limiting factor. Lowest priority seems to be the con-
fidence value, but I can get good results with conf.=0. It
also seems responsible for banding in some blur-gradients.
The important limit seems to be determined by the variance
because this is the parameter, that creates the edges that
are at the outer area of the blurring. But I have problems
to make it suitable for a nice image without setting it to
zero. But my current tests show that, even 10^-12 will not
be small enough to avoid the artefacts. But I think, that
I can also say, that normally 256 samples are enough, and
if one also sets variance to 0 then confidence seems to be
irrelevant, but to be sure I will still leave it on 1. And
I think now, that I will for all my coming focal blur pics
the variance at 0 and for "fast renders" only lower number
of samples ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wonderful, although I liked the blur in your second image better.
-Shay
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote in message
news:3cbf06e8@news.povray.org...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Have you (will you?) posted the code for this? I'd love to see how you
distributed the spheres.
thanks,
Dennis
"Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote in message
news:3cbf06e8@news.povray.org...
> OK ... here is it ...
> after 10h its complete with 30000 spheres ...
> ... not enough as you can see ...
>
> But:
> I used quite high FB-settings, and I have
> a feeling, that the focal blurring doesn't
> really work as it should. I wonder if this
> hard edge between the BLACK and the smooth
> gradient is supposed to be there or with a
> better process can be avoided ...
>
> My Camera is like this:
>
> camera
>
> cylinder 1
> location <0.0, 1, -4.0>
> sky <0.25,1,0>
> right x*8/3
> angle 120
> look_at <0.0, 0.6, 0.0>
>
> aperture 0.10
> blur_samples 1024
> focal_point <0,1,5>
> confidence 0.999
> variance 1/10240
> }
>
> Any idea anyone ?
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Actually, I could: my new include file can parse something like 50,000
> objects/minute (with random rotation, scaling, and location)....
Says to self: "Write a particle system with this..."
> ON A PI 133 MHz!!
AWESOME
> Plus, it can do interior and media in the objects. ANyone interested?
VERY
--
__________________
RAY
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dennis Miller" <dhm### [at] attbicom> wrote:
> Have you (will you?) posted the code for this? I'd love to see how you
> distributed the spheres.
> thanks,
No need to post this, I think ..
it's the most primitive(and slow) way of placing
spheres, I think. I first calculated the size of
the sphere, then its place. Then I simply tested
if there's already a sphere there that is in the
way (vlength(m2-m1)<r1+r2). If not, than I place
this new sphere and save the size and it's place
in an array and move on to the next sphere. Else
I try to find a new position/size...
I think, you can come up with such a macro quite
fast yourself, and besides this, my code is ugly
to read, because there are also many inefficient
parts in it... For publishing it would be better
to rewrite the whole thing...
Currently I have a better idea, to do this and I
will probably realease this code, if it works as
expected, but it can take a while....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sam Van Oort <sam### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3cbf22d7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Actually, I could: my new include file can parse something like 50,000
> objects/minute (with random rotation, scaling, and location)....
>
Without intersection?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jan Walzer wrote:
>
> No need to post this, I think ..
>
> it's the most primitive(and slow) way of placing
> spheres, I think. I first calculated the size of
> the sphere, then its place. Then I simply tested
> if there's already a sphere there that is in the
> way (vlength(m2-m1)<r1+r2). If not, than I place
> this new sphere and save the size and it's place
> in an array and move on to the next sphere. Else
> I try to find a new position/size...
It's absolutely off-topic, but I'm interested in how
one can type three big paragraphs, absolutely block-
aligned without using any filthy tricks like insert-
ing spaces and the like?
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
