 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The shadows and glows do look fantastic from the lights that are there
> though. Area lights?
Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light. Given that the tree has
hundreds of thousands of tiny needles - wait, just read the render
stats! Look at the number of shadow rays, for crying out loud! o__O
By the way, the floor is actually more patchy than it looks here. JPEG
compression and all. (Check out the render resolution; this image is
scaled down.)
I did also try this with radiosity - but it makes absolutely no visible
difference. (Well, given how puny the light sources are, the extra
bounces don't contribute much.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> PS I'd love to see this with a string of lights around the tree, rather
> than just the few points you have.
That is my plan. I plan to have a dozen or so lights covering the whole
tree. (You know, so you can actually *see* it!)
However, finding the correct light source coordinates by hand is
*extremely* tedious and slow. (Especially when it takes NINETY SECONDS
just to parse the scene!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light.
No! Lies! It's an 8x8 area light... (That's 256 point lights, in case
your maths isn't so hot.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> Orchid XP v3 wrote:
>
>> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light.
>
> No! Lies! It's an 8x8 area light... (That's 256 point lights, in case
> your maths isn't so hot.)
My math is not so hot. What is 256 point lights?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 02-01-2007 16:35:
>> The shadows and glows do look fantastic from the lights that are there
>> though. Area lights?
>
> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light. Given that the tree has
> hundreds of thousands of tiny needles - wait, just read the render
> stats! Look at the number of shadow rays, for crying out loud! o__O
Over 4 BILLIONS!
>
> By the way, the floor is actually more patchy than it looks here. JPEG
> compression and all. (Check out the render resolution; this image is
> scaled down.)
>
> I did also try this with radiosity - but it makes absolutely no visible
> difference. (Well, given how puny the light sources are, the extra
> bounces don't contribute much.)
As Christmass lights are geting smaller and smaller, actual point_lights should
be "good enough", especialy if you have 100's of them. Just a few 12's should
make the use of area_light mostly pointless. Don't forget to set fade_distance
to a suitably small value.
If manual placement is to tedious, why not try some procedural placement, maybe
integrated in the building of the branches. In real life, the lights are often
placed between branches.
If the parceing gets to long, why not use a switch to turn off the needles while
you place and test the lights?
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it
into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> > Orchid XP v3 wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light.
> >
> > No! Lies! It's an 8x8 area light... (That's 256 point lights, in case
> > your maths isn't so hot.)
> My math is not so hot. What is 256 point lights?
There are 72 points to an inch or 28.35 points to a centimetre for you
continentals :-)
Great image Andrew, with a full set of lights it should be ready for next
year. :-(
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light. Given that the tree has
>> hundreds of thousands of tiny needles - wait, just read the render
>> stats! Look at the number of shadow rays, for crying out loud! o__O
> Over 4 BILLIONS!
Hell yeah.
>> I did also try this with radiosity - but it makes absolutely no
>> visible difference. (Well, given how puny the light sources are, the
>> extra bounces don't contribute much.)
> As Christmass lights are geting smaller and smaller, actual point_lights
> should be "good enough", especialy if you have 100's of them.
With point-lights, the walls are covered by giant needle shapes. It
looks very bizzare and unatural. With area lights, the walls are motled
with shades of light and dark - go look at a real tree, this effect is
actually pretty much right on!
Now, if I actually had *hundreds* of lights on the tree, maybe it
wouldn't matter... but most sets of lights contain 20 or 40 lights, not
several hundred. ;-)
> Don't forget to set fade_distance to a suitably small value.
Already done. 50 cm. (Fading = quadratic.) This makes a big difference...
> If manual placement is to tedious, why not try some procedural
> placement, maybe integrated in the building of the branches.
I don't know what algorithm TomTree uses to built the branches.
> In real
> life, the lights are often placed between branches.
Yeah... maybe I should just wrap a "string" round the tree and use a
physics simulation to let "gravity" position the string? (I can use the
trace() function to make it stop when it hits a branch.)
OTOH... it's not going to be fast!
> If the parceing gets to long, why not use a switch to turn off the
> needles while you place and test the lights?
Already doing that. Takes 30 seconds to parse even without the needles.
(Can't turn the detail down any further because I need to see where I'm
placing things!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Great image Andrew, with a full set of lights it should be ready for next
> year. :-(
...er, yeah... o__O
I have a dual-core CPU now, so maybe it's time to try out the new
beta... >:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:04:16 +0000, Orchid XP v3 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Great image Andrew, with a full set of lights it should be ready for next
>> year. :-(
>
>...er, yeah... o__O
>
>
>
>
>
>I have a dual-core CPU now, so maybe it's time to try out the new
>beta... >:-D
Lucky you. Go for it!
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v3 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 03-01-2007 14:03:
>>> Yeah, each light source is a 16x16 area light. Given that the tree
>>> has hundreds of thousands of tiny needles - wait, just read the
>>> render stats! Look at the number of shadow rays, for crying out loud!
>>> o__O
>> Over 4 BILLIONS!
>
> Hell yeah.
>
>>> I did also try this with radiosity - but it makes absolutely no
>>> visible difference. (Well, given how puny the light sources are, the
>>> extra bounces don't contribute much.)
>> As Christmass lights are geting smaller and smaller, actual
>> point_lights should be "good enough", especialy if you have 100's of
>> them.
>
> With point-lights, the walls are covered by giant needle shapes. It
> looks very bizzare and unatural. With area lights, the walls are motled
> with shades of light and dark - go look at a real tree, this effect is
> actually pretty much right on!
>
> Now, if I actually had *hundreds* of lights on the tree, maybe it
> wouldn't matter... but most sets of lights contain 20 or 40 lights, not
> several hundred. ;-)
Just with 12 to 40 the need for area_light will go down, crank that up to 60~80
(3 or 4 sets of 20) and you probably can say area_light good by!
>
>> Don't forget to set fade_distance to a suitably small value.
>
> Already done. 50 cm. (Fading = quadratic.) This makes a big difference...
>
>> If manual placement is to tedious, why not try some procedural
>> placement, maybe integrated in the building of the branches.
>
> I don't know what algorithm TomTree uses to built the branches.
OK! It's not your own tree. Harder to selectively remove elements.
>
>> In real life, the lights are often placed between branches.
>
> Yeah... maybe I should just wrap a "string" round the tree and use a
> physics simulation to let "gravity" position the string? (I can use the
> trace() function to make it stop when it hits a branch.)
>
> OTOH... it's not going to be fast!
>
>> If the parceing gets to long, why not use a switch to turn off the
>> needles while you place and test the lights?
>
> Already doing that. Takes 30 seconds to parse even without the needles.
> (Can't turn the detail down any further because I need to see where I'm
> placing things!)
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Fine day to work off excess energy. Steal something heavy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
