 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stefan Viljoen
Subject: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 01:58:57
Message: <429ff19d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'floorglass.jpg' (69 KB)
Preview of image 'floorglass.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Cook
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 04:29:29
Message: <42a014e9$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*reaches for glasses*
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Trask
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 09:15:30
Message: <42a057f2@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v2
Subject: Re: The image that took a year to render...sucks (70kb)
Date: 3 Jun 2005 14:53:34
Message: <42a0a72e$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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... :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
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.
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 18:11:33
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
