But of course... The source and image maps are zipped up here:
http://home.mindspring.com/~grasshoppah/mars/mars.zip (about 8 MB). I'll
send you an .ini file to run that will render the right frames. If you
render all 10 frames and you want to render some more, just let me know and
I'll send you a new .ini file so nobody duplicates the same frames. But
please don't feel obligated to render all 10 frames because they take a few
hours each!

Thanks so much for helping out. I sure hope the animation turns out to be
worth everybody's time! ;>)

Regards,
Dave Blandston

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9ed09d@news.povray.org...
> I could do some rendering as well. Don't forget to
> distribute the frames and ini-files etc, so that we
> all render different frames...
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Hm. I've just watched the Toy Story DVD, so 2 hours
of rendering time set to lowest priority resulted in
half an image.

And then I've noticed that you haven't set a gamma in
the ini-file, and no assumed_gamma in the global-settings.

I sure hope that this doesn't mean the frames won't
fit together in the end... But in case, you should
inform yourself what to do if you need to gamma-
correct them (this means that my ten images might
not fit with your images or those of the other volunteers).

Regards,

Tim

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
"Dave Blandston" <gra### [at] earthlinknet> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3d9f2916@news.povray.org...
> But of course... The source and image maps are zipped up here:
> http://home.mindspring.com/~grasshoppah/mars/mars.zip (about 8 MB). I'll
> send you an .ini file to run that will render the right frames. If you
> render all 10 frames and you want to render some more, just let me know
and
> I'll send you a new .ini file so nobody duplicates the same frames. But
> please don't feel obligated to render all 10 frames because they take a
few
> hours each!
>
> Thanks so much for helping out. I sure hope the animation turns out to be
> worth everybody's time! ;>)
>
> Regards,
> Dave Blandston
>
> "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> news:3d9ed09d@news.povray.org...
> > I could do some rendering as well. Don't forget to
> > distribute the frames and ini-files etc, so that we
> > all render different frames...
> >
> > --
> > Tim Nikias
> > Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> > Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> And then I've noticed that you haven't set a gamma in
> the ini-file, and no assumed_gamma in the global-settings.
Good point, Tim. If I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do...), not
setting the gamma results in no gamma correction, which means the images may
not look right on everyone else's monitors, but the final animation will be
consistent. Whereas, if the scene or ini file did contain gamma settings,
the files produced on other computers would not be the same as if my
computer had rendered them, and although the individual frames would like
right on that person's computer, the final animation would not look right.
Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding how gamma correction works?

> I sure hope that this doesn't mean the frames won't
> fit together in the end...
Me too!

> Hm. I've just watched the Toy Story DVD, so 2 hours
> of rendering time set to lowest priority resulted in
> half an image.
You have a pretty speedy computer!

Regards,
-David

Post a reply to this message

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...

Well, as soon as the first frame is done, I'll send it over,
and you can check.

And regarding the speedy computer:
1.4 GHZ Athlon, Win98, 512 MB RAM

What's yours?

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> > And then I've noticed that you haven't set a gamma in
> > the ini-file, and no assumed_gamma in the global-settings.
> Good point, Tim. If I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do...), not
> setting the gamma results in no gamma correction, which means the images
may
> not look right on everyone else's monitors, but the final animation will
be
> consistent. Whereas, if the scene or ini file did contain gamma settings,
> the files produced on other computers would not be the same as if my
> computer had rendered them, and although the individual frames would like
> right on that person's computer, the final animation would not look right.
> Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding how gamma correction works?
>
> > I sure hope that this doesn't mean the frames won't
> > fit together in the end...
> Me too!
>
> > Hm. I've just watched the Toy Story DVD, so 2 hours
> > of rendering time set to lowest priority resulted in
> > half an image.
> You have a pretty speedy computer!
>
> Regards,
> -David
>
>

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...

I'll see. 30 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

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