 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And, another thing: I was just looking through
the source-code...
The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
some extra calculation?
Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
media-calculations out...
Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
but I'm not too sure about that...
If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...
I'll see. 30 lines left for the first image.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And, another thing: I was just looking through
the source-code...
The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
some extra calculation?
Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
media-calculations out...
Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
but I'm not too sure about that...
If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...
Hm. Looking at the first image, I also notice artifacts showing
up. These line up with the size of the containers for the media...
I'll see. 5 lines left for the first image.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oops - I don't remember, but I'm guessing that when I first added the
glowing media, my first estimate for the sphere radius was 8, and when I
adjusted the size of the media I forgot to adjust the container size as
well. You're right, I don't see any other reason for such a large container.
And the no_shadow keyword would also be an improvement that I didn't think
of.
What kind of artifacts do you see? I see some occasional dark lines in the
green media, is that what you're referring to? I think those are shadows
too. I tried to get rid of them using light_groups, but that didn't help.
But they are minor.
--
-David
"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9f825a$1@news.povray.org...
> And, another thing: I was just looking through
> the source-code...
>
> The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
> shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
> some extra calculation?
> Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
> media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
> only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
> boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
> media-calculations out...
> Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
> setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
> but I'm not too sure about that...
>
> If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
> the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
> I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
> the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
> to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...
>
> Hm. Looking at the first image, I also notice artifacts showing
> up. These line up with the size of the containers for the media...
>
> I'll see. 5 lines left for the first image.
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, as soon as the first frame is done, I'll send it over,
> and you can check.
Sounds good - That should solve the mystery.
> And regarding the speedy computer:
> 1.4 GHZ Athlon, Win98, 512 MB RAM
>
> What's yours?
A 700 MHz Athlon (it was considered fast when it was new...), only 128 MB
RAM. But when I started using POV v1.0, I had a 20 MHz 386 with no math
co-processor, so I guess I shouldn't complain...
--
-David
"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9f7dc5@news.povray.org...
> AFAIK, POV assumes a display_gamma of 2.2,
> which I have set (cause it is the correct value for my
> screen), and when using assumed_gamma, correction
> is applied.
>
> Reading the docs I came to the conclusion that
> not specifying an assumed_gamma, all images should
> be the same, as no correction is applied, no matter
> the display_gamma I set...
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I was referring to the dark lines. I hope
you receive the second image, then you can compare
that the resized container results in a somewhat
brighter media (mentioned in email as well).
Those artifacts aren't shadows, its due to sampling
and intervals which are taken between surfaces,
even if they are "invisible", and result in slighty different
approximations.
As mentioned in email, perhaps using the modified, faster
code would be better, although this might mean that
the entire batch needs to rendered with those settings,
otherwise the media will suddenly flare up with my
images...
I'm using no_shadow now and a squashed
sphere (using 0,1 scale <4.6,2.2,4.6> instead
of 0,4.6) as container, and it runs even faster,
line 272 after 13 minutes...
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
> Oops - I don't remember, but I'm guessing that when I first added the
> glowing media, my first estimate for the sphere radius was 8, and when I
> adjusted the size of the media I forgot to adjust the container size as
> well. You're right, I don't see any other reason for such a large
container.
> And the no_shadow keyword would also be an improvement that I didn't think
> of.
>
> What kind of artifacts do you see? I see some occasional dark lines in the
> green media, is that what you're referring to? I think those are shadows
> too. I tried to get rid of them using light_groups, but that didn't help.
> But they are minor.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've got a P4 1.7gig 1 gig ram and a TBirb 1.2 gig 768 meg if you would like
some help.
Buke
Remco de Korte <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote in message
news:3D9E59D8.825C1667@onwijs.com...
> Dave Blandston wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Now that POV 3.5 is up and running, I've decided to re-do an old
animation
> > called "Dave Attacks" which I originally entered in the October 2000
IRTC
> > "Alien Invasion" contest. It received such critical acclaim as "I think
you
> > could have done a little more with it. Where's the animation?"
> >
> > I've improved the shape of the UFO's (now they look pretty close to the
> > "Mars Attacks" model - the bottom used to be flat instead of rounded),
found
> > a better image map of the Earth, added cyclical cloud movement, and
better
> > metal textures. Also, there was a bug in POV that caused some of the
media
> > around the UFO's to be grainy, which appears to be fixed now.
> >
> > I think it's going to take about four months to complete the animation.
> > (Anybody want to render a few frames for me? Anybody???)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave Blandston
> >
> > Here's a preview of the new animation - any comments?
> >
> > [Image]
>
>
> Looks cool. And yes, I could do some rendering if you like.
>
> Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: hughes, b
Subject: Re: More UFO's (Just can't get enough... MHz?)
Date: 6 Oct 2002 01:08:00
Message: <3d9fc530@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey there Buke9! LTNS.
I'd like to get in on this too, Dave. I could leave my old 233MHz PC going
on it 24/7 without interference, would that be feasible? It sounds like a
slow-go on even the faster machines. I use my 800MHz notebook so much it'd
bog me down I fear.
--
Farewell,
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Dave Blandston
Subject: Re: More UFO's (Just can't get enough...)
Date: 6 Oct 2002 05:11:57
Message: <3d9ffe5d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi there Buke,
I tried to send you a file but the e-mail couldn't be delivered. :( But
thanks very much!
Regards,
-Dave Blandston
"buke9" <buk### [at] igloucom> wrote in message news:3d9fb0d1@news.povray.org...
> I've got a P4 1.7gig 1 gig ram and a TBirb 1.2 gig 768 meg if you would
like
> some help.
> Buke
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry forgot to change my settings in OE buk### [at] alltelnet will get here.
"Dave Blandston" <gra### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:3d9f8a9c$1@news.povray.org...
> > Well, as soon as the first frame is done, I'll send it over,
> > and you can check.
> Sounds good - That should solve the mystery.
>
> > And regarding the speedy computer:
> > 1.4 GHZ Athlon, Win98, 512 MB RAM
> >
> > What's yours?
> A 700 MHz Athlon (it was considered fast when it was new...), only 128 MB
> RAM. But when I started using POV v1.0, I had a 20 MHz 386 with no math
> co-processor, so I guess I shouldn't complain...
>
> --
> -David
>
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3d9f7dc5@news.povray.org...
> > AFAIK, POV assumes a display_gamma of 2.2,
> > which I have set (cause it is the correct value for my
> > screen), and when using assumed_gamma, correction
> > is applied.
> >
> > Reading the docs I came to the conclusion that
> > not specifying an assumed_gamma, all images should
> > be the same, as no correction is applied, no matter
> > the display_gamma I set...
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Damn. I was already gone when POV wanted
to start the 60-frame batch, but it gave an error
message (somehow it mixed up some files, the
original copy in my own documents folder and the
one I fiddle with when tracing, and thus it couldn't
combine ini and file properly), so all the time spent
on working was lost, though my PC was running.
Damn damn damn.
Ah well. I'll still finish them, of course.
Another thing: How should I send the files? Can you
give me someplace to upload them? Each image is
1.9 MB and I can only send one per email (GMX-limits)
and I'm not sure if your email-client would like 70x1.9 MB
emails...
Though I do have a webpage, its not my own, and the
guy hosting me has clearly pointed out that this kind of
action (uploading 140 MB and them you downloading
them) wasn't what he had in mind when hosting me. I'm
already using much of his space with my animations...
Thats totally okay with me, its his site, not mine, and I'm
greatful to have a site at all without banners etc.
So, if you mail me the access to your place, I can upload
everything there, or I can mail you the images one by one,
just tell me. I'm not sure if this might interest the other
render-farmers as well, which is why I posted here.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
