 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
s.f### [at] tiscali fr news:41fcca29@news.povray.org
> Just playing with isosurface, but really too long to render :-\
For such obejects tesselating them into a hi-quality smoothmesh could
probably give x10 speedup with same quality (only with bigger memory
usage).
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> Just playing with isosurface, but really too long to render :-\
> 26h on a XP3200+...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I see a lot of black spots on the edges of the front object along the
rims of the holes and the objects in the back have a lot of noise that
looks unnatural to me. Too much focal blur perhaps?
--
Maurice
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> Just playing with isosurface, but really too long to render :-\
> 26h on a XP3200+...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Just out of curiosity. Do you add the title and your name in the bottom
right corner in a post processing step or is it in the source?
--
Maurice
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> LightBeam wrote:
>
>> Just playing with isosurface, but really too long to render :-\
>> 26h on a XP3200+...
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Just out of curiosity. Do you add the title and your name in the bottom
> right corner in a post processing step or is it in the source?
Gimp...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For real meteorites, they would have a dark color, and be less deeply
pitted.
But, you did say asteroids.. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
so much for the "zazzle 7800x5200" idea then......
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LightBeam wrote:
> Just playing with isosurface, but really too long to render :-\
> 26h on a XP3200+...
Tony
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eli wrote:
> so much for the "zazzle 7800x5200" idea then......
Let's see, I roughly guess a week for 1600x1200,
and 9 years for the zazzle. The zazzle might be
finished faster by waiting five years for technology
increase, and then letting go with whatever hardware
and POV code is available then.
-Scott
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Eli wrote:
>> so much for the "zazzle 7800x5200" idea then......
>
> Let's see, I roughly guess a week for 1600x1200,
> and 9 years for the zazzle. The zazzle might be
> finished faster by waiting five years for technology
> increase, and then letting go with whatever hardware
> and POV code is available then.
>
> -Scott
If 1600x1200 takes a week, then 7800x5200 should take a bit less than 25
weeks, or 6 months. Where did the 9 years figure come frommm?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Eli wrote:
>> so much for the "zazzle 7800x5200" idea then......
>
> Let's see, I roughly guess a week for 1600x1200,
> and 9 years for the zazzle. The zazzle might be
> finished faster by waiting five years for technology
> increase, and then letting go with whatever hardware
> and POV code is available then.
>
> -Scott
You're replying to a thread over a year old?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
