Alain wrote:
> Arttu Voutilainen nous illumina en ce 2008-10-27 13:58 -->
>> William Tracy wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> Gee, man!  The render time was already 72 hours for quite low
>>>> resolution, let
>>>> alone with higher blur_samples.
>>> Aren't I a bastard? ;-)
>>>
>>> I look at the shoreline in the extreme foreground, and I see random blue
>>> and green pixels sprinkled around, which bugs me. With higher samples,
>>> you'll get more of a smooth gradient.
>>>
>>> Another option would be to tweak the aperture, reducing the amount of
>>> blur, and reducing the number of samples needed to eliminate the grain.
>>
>> Yep, I guess I'll do both: lower the aperture and increase samples. Or
>> if Alain can explain that blurred transparency to me well enough that I
>> can code it, I might try it first :P
>>
>>> Then again, some people are fine with the grain. You decide whether the
>>> render time is worthwhile. :-)
>>>
>>> BTW, now that you mention it, what hardware is this running on?
>>>
>>
>> The 72 hours was on my own computer, AMD 64 3500+. The bigger version
>> (now 140:57:56 Rendering line 130 of 720, 89598 rad. samples) is running
>> on Eero Ahonen's bit more faster AMD 4450e.
>>
>> -- Arttu Voutilainen
> 
> Have you ever done any blured reflection?
> Now, do the same, but with a transparent object placed close to the camera.
> The thing is, you need to keep the number of averaged normals low, as
> each ray will hit the surfaces twice. Averaging 16 normale résult in
> each ray been multiplied by 16x16, or 256.
> 
> 

Nope, I have never really done it, but I think I tried once. I do know
how it's supposed to be done, and I'll try it when I have time to get
back to this image. School has kept me a bit busy lately..

Thanks for the tip.

-- Arttu Voutilainen

Post a reply to this message