 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"fidos" <fid### [at] wanadoo fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The same scene rendered with mcpov.
> I think the rendering was around 8 hours on 4 cores (Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz).
>
> Regards,
> Fidos
Long live the McPov!
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "fidos" <fid### [at] wanadoofr> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The same scene rendered with mcpov.
> > I think the rendering was around 8 hours on 4 cores (Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Fidos
>
> Long live the McPov!
When/if it gets a fancy release, it just begs to have a tartan POV logo :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> According to the IRTC text file the original took 2 hours to render using
> 106 processors (1.9GHz P3s - 2.3GHz P4s) from Swinburne
> Astrophysics and Supercomputing Farm, Australia.
Why on earth would such a shot take 10 CPU days to render?!
There's not even reflection in it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > According to the IRTC text file the original took 2 hours to render using
> > 106 processors (1.9GHz P3s - 2.3GHz P4s) from Swinburne
> > Astrophysics and Supercomputing Farm, Australia.
>
> Why on earth would such a shot take 10 CPU days to render?!
>
> There's not even reflection in it.
Try to believe.
I have a suspicion: error_bound 0.02
;-)
--
Carlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Carlo C." <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Why on earth would such a shot take 10 CPU days to render?!
> >
> > There's not even reflection in it.
>
> Try to believe.
> I have a suspicion: error_bound 0.02
In any case it smells like a bad choice of radiosity parameters...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The low error bound is one reason but the scene is also constructed entirely
of CSG. Some manual bounding of the objects in the scene might help speed it
up.
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49731cd19cf147cbfb23a32b0@news.povray.org...
> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> According to the IRTC text file the original took 2 hours to render using
>> 106 processors (1.9GHz P3s - 2.3GHz P4s) from Swinburne
>> Astrophysics and Supercomputing Farm, Australia.
>
> Why on earth would such a shot take 10 CPU days to render?!
>
> There's not even reflection in it.
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very nice. My version is a bit grainy which makes me wonder if mcpov would
give the same result in the same amount of time.
"fidos" <fid### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:web.4972ead49cf147cb6cc3f9360@news.povray.org...
> Hello,
>
> The same scene rendered with mcpov.
> I think the rendering was around 8 hours on 4 cores (Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz).
>
> Regards,
> Fidos
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > According to the IRTC text file the original took 2 hours to render using
> > 106 processors (1.9GHz P3s - 2.3GHz P4s) from Swinburne
> > Astrophysics and Supercomputing Farm, Australia.
>
> Why on earth would such a shot take 10 CPU days to render?!
>
> There's not even reflection in it.
This was back in 2002. :)
http://propro.ru/go/gallery/html/us2002.html
Perhaps it's because the scene consists of CSG primitives rather than
polygons...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hiya Mike!
Yours has more pop to it, other looks bland to me.
Something I noticed almost immediately, though, is how closer to street
level on the mid-ground left side the MCPOV rendering has a darkening that
makes more sense. But overall it seems dull. Question is then, I wonder why
yours lacks the darkness between buildings when other parts are actually
darker than in the MCPOV render...? Must be something about illumination
bounce over distance, I'm thinking.
First thought about this scene was the overwhelming blue... my favorite
color. Just confusing thing about possibly being twilight and would this
really be that blue if so. Can't imagine even totally white buildings being
that blue in the evening (or morning) I guess. ;^)
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey Bob. Been awhile.
It may be that my method doesn't take it account the lighting contribution
of nearby surfaces. All it does is test for shadows at each point using the
vectors defined by the user. It is a cheap trick but it works. At the time I
made the patch hemispherical lights were all the rage.
Mike
"Bob Hughes" <omniverse charter net> wrote in message
news:4973cded$1@news.povray.org...
> Hiya Mike!
>
> Yours has more pop to it, other looks bland to me.
> Something I noticed almost immediately, though, is how closer to street
> level on the mid-ground left side the MCPOV rendering has a darkening that
> makes more sense. But overall it seems dull. Question is then, I wonder
> why yours lacks the darkness between buildings when other parts are
> actually darker than in the MCPOV render...? Must be something about
> illumination bounce over distance, I'm thinking.
>
> First thought about this scene was the overwhelming blue... my favorite
> color. Just confusing thing about possibly being twilight and would this
> really be that blue if so. Can't imagine even totally white buildings
> being that blue in the evening (or morning) I guess. ;^)
>
> Bob
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
