 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not too sure what is resonable for render times with a lot of reflection
and refraction. I had the following in my .pov file :
global_settings { assumed_gamma 2.2
max_trace_level 20
max_intersections 128
ambient_light color <0.7, 0.7, 0.7> }
The following image is taken from a 8192x6160 render thus :
$ time -p /usr/local/povray31/povray_sparc_v9a -I./input/tet5.pov \
> -L/usr/local/povray31/include +W8192 +H6160 +V +X8192 +B4096 \
> +FT +O./tet5_8192x6160.tga +HTT +HN./tet5_cpu_8192x6160.tga +Q9 \
> +A0.3 +AM2 +R3 +GA +KC +K0.382
Persistence of Vision(tm) Ray Tracer Version 3.1g.SunOS.cc
This is an unofficial version compiled by:
Dennis M. Clarke dcl### [at] blastwave com
The POV-Ray Team(tm) is not responsible for supporting this version.
.
.
.
Done Tracing
./input/tet5.pov Statistics, Resolution 8192 x 6160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pixels: 50462720 Samples: 82028453 Smpls/Pxl: 1.63
Rays: 316574997 Saved: 37525654 Max Level: 20/20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 826817185 3870963320 28.23
Cone/Cylinder 2109495242 147842577 7.01
CSG Intersection 2936312427 821313009 5.19
CSG Union 3164242863 205469880 6.49
Plane 3915083236 183872317 41.59
Sphere 4143013672 960173638 62.28
Torus 3164242863 9526603 0.30
Torus Bound 3164242863 11093977 0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roots tested: 11093977 eliminated: 4131413
Calls to Noise: 680401248 Calls to DNoise: 777807805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadow Ray Tests: 3045879343 Succeeded: 338358321
Reflected Rays: 159191456 Total Internal: 66185445
Refracted Rays: 75347907
Transmitted Rays: 7181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smallest Alloc: 20 bytes Largest: 403701776
Peak memory used: 411535670 bytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time For Parse: 0 hours 0 minutes 55.0 seconds (55 seconds)
Time For Trace: 33 hours 39 minutes 25.0 seconds (121165 seconds)
Total Time: 33 hours 40 minutes 20.0 seconds (121220 seconds)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'glass_refract_1.png' (602 KB)
Preview of image 'glass_refract_1.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That seems to be about right for a very large render with that high of a
trace level. Some of my scenes get into the billions for tests of boxes and
bounds, such as my last post, which does use a lot of reflections and
refractions. For only a 768 square it took three hours, but that's probably
due to the 9 photon emitting light sources. What kind of lighting did you
use in your scene? I've never heard of that enormous of an image being
rendered with povray. I suppose somebody's probably tested the limits with
a simple scene before, but with one such as yours, I don't know. Would you
please post the full image? Resized and resampled of course. I know we
won't be able to see all the nifty little details that way, but hey, have
mercy on us 56k'ers. It's tough to tell from the current image what your
scene is, but I can see a sky and a landscape in the a reflection on a
corner of the abstract glassy object. It's pretty cool.
-Ben Scheele
"Dennis Clarke" <dcl### [at] interlogcom> wrote in message
news:3DFF986E.20E96272@interlog.com...
>
> I'm not too sure what is resonable for render times with a lot of
reflection
> and refraction. I had the following in my .pov file :
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ben T. Scheele" wrote:
>
> That seems to be about right for a very large render with that high of a
> trace level. Some of my scenes get into the billions for tests of boxes and
> bounds, such as my last post, which does use a lot of reflections and
> refractions. For only a 768 square it took three hours, but that's probably
> due to the 9 photon emitting light sources. What kind of lighting did you
> use in your scene? I've never heard of that enormous of an image being
> rendered with povray. I suppose somebody's probably tested the limits with
> a simple scene before, but with one such as yours, I don't know. Would you
> please post the full image? Resized and resampled of course. I know we
> won't be able to see all the nifty little details that way, but hey, have
> mercy on us 56k'ers. It's tough to tell from the current image what your
> scene is, but I can see a sky and a landscape in the a reflection on a
> corner of the abstract glassy object. It's pretty cool.
>
> -Ben Scheele
Well .. the image is a tad large for a 56K modem :
$ ls -lap tet5_8192x6160.tga
-rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke other 151388178 Dec 17 12:09 tet5_8192x6160.tga
The png images are much smaller. I'll see if I can post them to my website.
As for limits I will attempt a 16384x12320 image tonight!
Dennis Clarke
Here is a bit of the CPU histogram for the image ...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'glass_refract_cpu_5.png' (552 KB)
Preview of image 'glass_refract_cpu_5.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Could you post as jpeg? Its huge as a png! :)
> I'm not too sure what is resonable for render times with a lot of
reflection
> and refraction. I had the following in my .pov file :
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Please, stop posting such large images. 800KB takes five to ten minutes to
download on a modem; it's quite annoying. Please take a small amount of time
to create a compressed JPG. Thanks.
(This would be in response to your second post in the thread but I didn't
want to download it and Outlook Newsreader wont let me respond to it until I
do.)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That's very cool. I tried doing a histogram early on, but for a small
short render it wasn't very impressive. I kind of forgot about doing that
until now. I'll have to try it again.
Oh, some people are so impatient, but I think it would be better if you
compressed the image more using jpeg format.
-Ben Scheele
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
>
> Please, stop posting such large images. 800KB takes five to ten minutes to
> download on a modem; it's quite annoying. Please take a small amount of time
> to create a compressed JPG. Thanks.
Yeah yeah yeah .. I didn't want to lose the detail.
dc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aaron wrote:
>
> Could you post as jpeg? Its huge as a png! :)
>
> > I'm not too sure what is resonable for render times with a lot of
> reflection
> > and refraction. I had the following in my .pov file :
yes yes .. I will never let that happen again! :)
dc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ben T. Scheele" wrote:
>
> That's very cool. I tried doing a histogram early on, but for a small
> short render it wasn't very impressive. I kind of forgot about doing that
> until now. I'll have to try it again.
> Oh, some people are so impatient, but I think it would be better if you
> compressed the image more using jpeg format.
Gee .. this is a thought that I have heard expressed a few times since I
posted. I adjust my approach and try again.
dc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
