|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 18:11:33
Message: <42a0d594@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Trask spake:
> Stefan Viljoen <sviljoen@ wrote:
>> This image took about one year to render, first with a 1.8 system running
>> 24/7 for about eight months, then a 3 gHz machine running for the
>> remaining four, 24/7.
>>
>> Sorta an experiment (as regards isosurfaces, media, and media quality
>> settings) that failed. I thought it would look nicer.
>>
>> Clearly, longer (or VERY long) trace times don't neccessarily lead to
>> better images...
>>
>> Just thought I'd share the disappointment!
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> I must commiserate; wow, that's ... unfortunate.
*sniff*
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 18:11:51
Message: <42a0d5a6@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 spake:
> 1...... YEAR?!
>
> o____O
>
>
>
> Dear God... I would never let a render run for anything approaching that
> length of time!
>
> Man, you must be HACKED OFF with the final result... :-/
*sniff* *sniff*
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 18:13:01
Message: <42a0d5ec@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mienai" <Mienai> spake:
> Ummm, not to be rude, but did you not notice how blurry your output was
> during that time? Or did you just not check you output?
Yeah I did - but I thought it would get better (after 3 months - I mean -
heck - 3 MONTHS - I can't restart after 3 MONTHS!!!) :0
> Looks kind of like you used a focal blur, did you? If you take that out
> your render would probably go faster and your results a bit better, but
> that's my opinion.
Yep... guess its also not a good thing to have TOO much patience.
I just learned I still got A LOT to learn about PovRay.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: dlm
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 19:28:57
Message: <42a0e7b9@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <sviljoen@<removethis> wrote in message
news:42a0d5ec@news.povray.org...
>...
> Yeah I did - but I thought it would get better (after 3 months - I mean -
> heck - 3 MONTHS - I can't restart after 3 MONTHS!!!) :0
>
>> Looks kind of like you used a focal blur, did you? If you take that out
>> your render would probably go faster and your results a bit better, but
>> that's my opinion.
>
> Yep... guess its also not a good thing to have TOO much patience.
>
> I just learned I still got A LOT to learn about PovRay.
>
What can I say? Vasbyt!
:DLM
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 4 Jun 2005 13:57:59
Message: <42a1eba6@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dlm spake:
> "Stefan Viljoen polard.com>" <sviljoen@<removethis> wrote in message
> news:42a0d5ec@news.povray.org...
>>...
>> Yeah I did - but I thought it would get better (after 3 months - I mean -
>> heck - 3 MONTHS - I can't restart after 3 MONTHS!!!) :0
>>
>>> Looks kind of like you used a focal blur, did you? If you take that out
>>> your render would probably go faster and your results a bit better, but
>>> that's my opinion.
>>
>> Yep... guess its also not a good thing to have TOO much patience.
>>
>> I just learned I still got A LOT to learn about PovRay.
>>
>
> What can I say? Vasbyt!
> :DLM
Harder render beteken nie noodwendig beter prentjies nie...
Ai tog ek vermoed as ek my eerste 1 Terahertz masjien kry sal ek dit binne
'n week weer 'n scene gee wat dit vir 'n jaar gaan besig hou... en dit sal
OOK crap lyk!
Lekker trace,
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <sviljoen@<removethis>polard.com> wrote:
> This image took about one year to render, first with a 1.8 system running
> 24/7 for about eight months, then a 3 gHz machine running for the remaining
> four, 24/7.
>
> Sorta an experiment (as regards isosurfaces, media, and media quality
> settings) that failed. I thought it would look nicer.
>
> Clearly, longer (or VERY long) trace times don't neccessarily lead to better
> images...
>
> Just thought I'd share the disappointment!
> --
> Stefan Viljoen
> Software Support Technician / Programmer
> Polar Design Solutions
Take heart Stefan - the road to media mastery is paved with patience, and I
am amazed at how patient you are. I am currently 25% into the rendering of
a crystal object using photons, media, and radiosity. With luck it will be
finished four more days, but I am already itching to abort and start
tweaking. I guess it's time for a multi-processor system (or several of
them!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 6 Jun 2005 01:40:36
Message: <42a3e1d3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lonnie spake:
> Stefan Viljoen <sviljoen@<removethis>polard.com> wrote:
>> This image took about one year to render, first with a 1.8 system running
>> 24/7 for about eight months, then a 3 gHz machine running for the
>> remaining four, 24/7.
>>
>> Sorta an experiment (as regards isosurfaces, media, and media quality
>> settings) that failed. I thought it would look nicer.
>>
>> Clearly, longer (or VERY long) trace times don't neccessarily lead to
>> better images...
>>
>> Just thought I'd share the disappointment!
>> --
>> Stefan Viljoen
>> Software Support Technician / Programmer
>> Polar Design Solutions
>
> Take heart Stefan - the road to media mastery is paved with patience, and
> I
> am amazed at how patient you are. I am currently 25% into the rendering
> of
> a crystal object using photons, media, and radiosity. With luck it will
> be finished four more days, but I am already itching to abort and start
> tweaking. I guess it's time for a multi-processor system (or several of
> them!)
Thanks - well, if I can scrape together the cash for another HT P4, I should
be alright. Then I can throw 4 processor at a trace, not just 2 as I have a
the moment... oh yeah!
I think I maybe have a bit too much patience thought - 4 days for a
media/photons/radiosity trace doesn't sound too bad.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Looks kind of like you used a focal blur, did you? If you take that out
> your render would probably go faster and your results a bit better, but
> that's my opinion.
Hee Hee. And might even shave a WEEK of the render time. Got to be worth a
try! Hee Hee
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: stingo
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 9 Jun 2005 16:46:45
Message: <42a8aab4@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What was the resolution of the render?
Why would not render it in a thumb size(320x200, 160x... ) first, just to
check?
That is really maniacs idea to run that long without knowing the output.
> This image took about one year to render, first with a 1.8 system running
> 24/7 for about eight months, then a 3 gHz machine running for the
> remaining four, 24/7.
>
> Sorta an experiment (as regards isosurfaces, media, and media quality
> settings) that failed. I thought it would look nicer.
>
> Clearly, longer (or VERY long) trace times don't neccessarily lead to
> better images...
>
> Just thought I'd share the disappointment!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 10 Jun 2005 02:29:55
Message: <42a93362@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stingo spake:
> What was the resolution of the render?
> Why would not render it in a thumb size(320x200, 160x... ) first, just to
> check?
Because even THAT would have taken about a week (or two...)
:0
> That is really maniacs idea to run that long without knowing the output.
I am a maniac!
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
http://polard.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |