 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And it renders fairly quickly - with no AA on my lowly P-III laptop, it
took about 30 minutes at 1400x1050.
Very nice piece of work, going to have fun exploring the 'how it works'
aspect later. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great, Slime!
Here's 1280 x 960
DLM
"Marneus Calgar" <nos### [at] please com> wrote in message
news:426de801$1@news.povray.org...
>> Just playing with 3.7 beta 2 and came up with this. Isosurface, media,
>> refraction, sky_sphere.
>>
>> - Slime
>> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
>>
>>
>>
> Hey, I love it! !!!
>
> Could you render it in 1440x900, I want to put it as my new wallpaper
> without having to alter the picture quality !
>
> --
> Dark Skull Software
> http://www.darkskull.net
>
> A+
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'slime.jpg' (220 KB)
Preview of image 'slime.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>Could you render it in 1440x900, I want to put it as my new wallpaper
>>without having to alter the picture quality !
>
>
> You can render it in any resolution you want if you use the source code
> provided in my other post. =)
Oh, i had'nt seen it ^^
--
Dark Skull Software
http://www.darkskull.net
A+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Great, Slime!
> Here's 1280 x 960
> DLM
Thank you !
--
Dark Skull Software
http://www.darkskull.net
A+
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
MOST impressive...
You know that "challenge" I "posted" in off-topic? I think you just won
it! ;-)
Now how come when I fiddle with POV-Ray I never accidentally produce
something this cool? Heh. Maybe I don't fiddle for long enough... LOL!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:07:10 -0600, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And it renders fairly quickly - with no AA on my lowly P-III laptop, it
> took about 30 minutes at 1400x1050.
Of course, *with* AA it takes just *slightly* longer to render. ;-)
Now it's running on a Dual Processor HT 2.4 GHz Xeon system (wish there
was a beta of 3.7 for Linux), and after almost 85 hours, it's on line 240
out of 1050. This was with AA set to a threshold of 0.1, depth 9, and
jitter 1.0.
It looks very good so far.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Of course, *with* AA it takes just *slightly* longer to render. ;-)
Yep.
> Now it's running on a Dual Processor HT 2.4 GHz Xeon system (wish there
> was a beta of 3.7 for Linux), and after almost 85 hours, it's on line 240
> out of 1050. This was with AA set to a threshold of 0.1, depth 9, and
> jitter 1.0.
Depth 9? :-0
> It looks very good so far.
Uh... yeah, I *bet* it does!
(I've never tried a depth of more than 5 myself... OTOH, never tried
different depths to compare the result either!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:50:16 +0100, Emerald Orchid wrote:
>> Of course, *with* AA it takes just *slightly* longer to render. ;-)
>
> Yep.
>
>> Now it's running on a Dual Processor HT 2.4 GHz Xeon system (wish there
>> was a beta of 3.7 for Linux), and after almost 85 hours, it's on line
>> 240 out of 1050. This was with AA set to a threshold of 0.1, depth 9,
>> and jitter 1.0.
>
> Depth 9? :-0
Yeah, I normally don't use anything beyond depth 5 myself, but I thought
I'd see what this "new-to-me" machine could do. :-)
>> It looks very good so far.
>
> Uh... yeah, I *bet* it does!
I'll put a copy of it somewhere where it can be pulled if anyone's
interested - when it's done (should be another week or so at this rate <G>)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I thought some might be interested in knowing that this render *finally*
finished (last night around 11 PM local time). I actually stopped and
restarted a couple of times (system upgrades, actually), but only had
about 3 hours downtime between the start and the end.
The final hour count was 3153 hours (render time of 131 days 9 hours). I
did try to run it at the highest processor priority (nice level -19) most
of the time, but didn't run it that way continuously.
I'm now rerunning at a depth of 3; after 15 minutes, it's about a quarter
of the way finished. I'm going to be interested to see if the differences
are visible at all...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:10:52 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:
> I thought some might be interested in knowing that this render *finally*
> finished (last night around 11 PM local time). I actually stopped and
> restarted a couple of times (system upgrades, actually), but only had
> about 3 hours downtime between the start and the end.
>
> The final hour count was 3153 hours (render time of 131 days 9 hours). I
> did try to run it at the highest processor priority (nice level -19) most
> of the time, but didn't run it that way continuously.
>
> I'm now rerunning at a depth of 3; after 15 minutes, it's about a quarter
> of the way finished. I'm going to be interested to see if the
> differences
> are visible at all...
>
> Jim
How can you say this AND NOT POST THE IMAGE!?!?!
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
