 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:57:32 -0400, Tyler Eaves wrote:
> How can you say this AND NOT POST THE IMAGE!?!?!
Sorry, meant to include a link - I've had problems posting images here
using Mozilla in the past. :-)
http://hendersj.dyndns.org/short/blueblob-9x9.html is the ray depth 9
image. The other is still going, about 90% complete. I'll add it to the
parent album when it's completed, but so far, it's looking identical to
the other. I'm going to do a binary diff on it to see if there's any real
difference.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:33:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:57:32 -0400, Tyler Eaves wrote:
>
>> How can you say this AND NOT POST THE IMAGE!?!?!
>
> Sorry, meant to include a link - I've had problems posting images here
> using Mozilla in the past. :-)
>
VERY cool! The full size version is my new background. But 3000
hours....yeesh. Were you rendering on a 486 or something?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:53:50 -0400, Tyler Eaves wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:33:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>
>> [quoted text muted]
> VERY cool! The full size version is my new background. But 3000
> hours....yeesh. Were you rendering on a 486 or something?
Dual Xeon, 2.4 GHz per processor. +R9 is what made it take so long
(that's the AA depth, and is the maximum value). The +R3 version finished
after a little over 6 hours.
Visibly, there's not much difference.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
