 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "stm31415" <sam### [at] cs com> schreef in bericht
>>My main problem with the waterfall is not hte way it looks (though it
> would
>
>>be nicer if you worked on that) but is it's geological effect on the
>>surroundings. It seems to have had no effect whatsoever on the cliff.
>>Either put a dent in the cliff (hard?) or move and scale the waterfall so
>>as to place it in an extant dent.
>>
> Well, it *is* in a lower part of the cliff, but I agree that it looks
> somewhat artificial there. Oh well, there is still a lot to do on it!
>
As a reference for a similar waterfall, you might find these
interesting:
http://www.henrik-ks.dk/photoshtml/BrecheDeRoland/06_23TinaAndHenrikInfronfOfTheGavarnieLaGrandeCascade.JPG
http://www.stmarys-sfc.ac.uk/lourdes2004/On%20the%20way%20to%20the%20glacier%20at%20Gavarnie.JPG
http://www.balades-pyrenees.com/gavarnie_gravure.htm
Jerome
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jeb### [at] freefr *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD5HIod0kWM4JG3k8RAjoFAKCaK4TCurp50IO7lgrcDRyuOI0MqQCeLHuz
6Q9BWPaf7HHGUCMoIGWjI8Y=
=ZGmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Most awesome. Whatever changes you make as the image develops, I trust your
judgment. :O)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias" <JUSTTHELOWERCASE:timISNOTnikias(at)gmx.netWARE> schreef in
bericht news:43e34ca6$1@news.povray.org...
>
> And 36 hours, sheesh, at was resolution are you rendering? :-) Is it just
> because of the isosurface, or is there lot of media in there? If it's
> isosurface...
I found the culprit! It is the texture used for the landscape. I embedded a
slope texture inside another slope texture. Now, this works fine, but is
very slow, and not really essential in this scene. I corrected it and lo!
Much faster!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:43e5b15b@news.povray.org...
> Much faster!
>
Now you can rise render time again with media haze for your waterfall ;)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I am not sure about this, but I assume that it is the calculation of the
> lightfall and shadows of the object elements that takes all the time?
I'm sure if you search around you can find data on these NGs somewhere,
but basically the thing that typically takes most of the time in
raytracing is figuring out which object(s) a ray actually intersects.
(They recon ray intersection tests typically make up 80% of the
calculation - obviously depending on what you're drawing.)
This is probably *especially* true with isosurfaces. Gotta do a whole
adaptive sampling process for each ray intersection there. (Plus extra
calculations to find the surface normal.)
Once you have the ray intersection coordinates and the surface normal,
actually figuring out the lighting is a tiny little calculation. (Except
that if you want shadows, gotta shoot *more* rays... And if you have
area lights, gotta shoot *loads* more rays...)
This is why POV-Ray [currently] has bounding boxes, vista buffers, light
buffers, etc. It's all the try to reduce the number of ray intersection
tests...
[I understand the new beta might be using kD trees or something... not
finalised yet.]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Marc Jacquier" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> schreef in bericht
news:43e5c88c@news.povray.org...
>
> news:43e5b15b@news.povray.org...
> > Much faster!
> >
> Now you can rise render time again with media haze for your waterfall ;)
>
You know what? I did some testing indeed..... render time dropped
vertiginously!! I am seriously thinking not to implement that item... :-(
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:
> You know what? I did some testing indeed..... render time dropped
> vertiginously!! I am seriously thinking not to implement that item... :-(
It's interesting that there's a whole range of scene planning / modelling
skills that have no impact at all on the final image but can make the
rendering time feasible as opposed to prohibitive. It's always worth trying
for speed. That's why I'm building my knots out of meshes - I tried it as a
sphere_sweep originally and it took hours - at the moment 35,000 meshes
only take 35 minutes (that's with area lights and at 1024x768).
That said, patience is a virtue when the chips are down. Like Stefan, I
often leave renders running for 100s of hours, usually on my office PC
overnight or at weekends.
Keep up your productive patience!
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e716af435fc922731f01d10@news.povray.org...
>
> It's interesting that there's a whole range of scene planning / modelling
> skills that have no impact at all on the final image but can make the
> rendering time feasible as opposed to prohibitive. It's always worth
trying
> for speed. That's why I'm building my knots out of meshes - I tried it as
a
> sphere_sweep originally and it took hours - at the moment 35,000 meshes
> only take 35 minutes (that's with area lights and at 1024x768).
>
> That said, patience is a virtue when the chips are down. Like Stefan, I
> often leave renders running for 100s of hours, usually on my office PC
> overnight or at weekends.
>
> Keep up your productive patience!
> Bill
>
Thanks Bill. Yes, I agree with you.In the present case, I have lost again
quite a lot of render speed by using a more complex plant (mesh2 of course).
And now I have included also a media mist at the base of the (moved
elsewhere) waterfall.
Patience I have (in Yoda speak)... I think the end result will be very
interesting.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Man-o-man, this has improved dramatically since I last saw it. Looks like it
could end up being a fantasy book cover. Many elements in the scene are so
interesting that it's not possible to just "glance" at it--the total effect
astounds me. The 'sum is bigger than its parts' so to speak. What grand
scale.
Those Pteranodons(?) are quite nice. A suggestion would be to give them a
more interesting texture, in keeping with the fantastical atmosphere of the
entire scene. Something more colorful, perhaps.
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in bericht
news:web.43e87a1a220a28164e7d119a0@news.povray.org...
> Man-o-man, this has improved dramatically since I last saw it. Looks like
it
> could end up being a fantasy book cover. Many elements in the scene are so
> interesting that it's not possible to just "glance" at it--the total
effect
> astounds me. The 'sum is bigger than its parts' so to speak. What grand
> scale.
>
> Those Pteranodons(?) are quite nice. A suggestion would be to give them a
> more interesting texture, in keeping with the fantastical atmosphere of
the
> entire scene. Something more colorful, perhaps.
>
Thank you indeed!
Yes, going well, and the next version is pending (veeeeery slow because of a
media simulating the vapor at the base of the waterfall!!)
Good idea about the Pteranodons! I used the standard textures that came with
them, but I am going to change that. Thanks for mentioning that feature.
Maybe a leopard texture would be nice....
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
