 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, a couple final observations:
If you do want to use the iso rather than a heightfield, I noticed that your
isosurface is clipped too high and intersects with the floor, this will get
noticeable when the light fading is working properly. Change your contained_by
box (This is likely also increasing your render time unecessarily)
contained_by {box {<-10,-3,-10>, < 25, 1, 25>}}
If you are not happy with the way the lightfading is working switch to media,
with scattering only it doesn't add much render time: (be sure to add "hollow"
to your isosurface or heightfield object for it to work)
#declare WCol=rgb <0.217,0.552,0.877>;
#local FD=3;
#declare i_water =interior {
ior 1.33
media{
absorption rgb 1-WCol
density{rgb -ln(0.58)/FD}
}
}
I did some very quick time comparisons for you:
1) Original iso with fading: 56s
2) Corrected iso (as above) with fading: 40s (big increase! doesn't have to
calculate back intersections anymore
3) Corrected iso with media: 42s (only slight increase)
4) HF (600x600) with fading: 28s (another big decrease!)
5) HF (600x600) with media: 30s (again, only slight increase)
Also note that changin the resoltuion of the HF only increases parse time (and
memory usage) not render time.
Hope this has all been of some help to you.
-tgq
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paolo Gibellini wrote:
> Hallo!
> The render of the image I had to propose for IRTC testing session is
> ended yesterday (I have posted a version without water).
> My home hardware is a little obsolete and after a month render was at
> 30%, so I've asked help to a friend with a more efficient machine, which
> completed the work in less than two weeks (ok, I need to upgrade my
> hardware).
> I'm not happy of the final image because it is shady and the golden
> pieces composing the IRTC word doesn't shines as in my intention.
> Sources in p.b.i.
> Have a nice day,
> ;-)
> Paolo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
It looks quite nice imo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Trevor G Quayle on date 11/09/2009 17:04 wrote:
> OK, a couple final observations:
>
> If you do want to use the iso rather than a heightfield, I noticed that your
> isosurface is clipped too high and intersects with the floor, this will get
> noticeable when the light fading is working properly. Change your contained_by
> box (This is likely also increasing your render time unecessarily)
> contained_by {box {<-10,-3,-10>, < 25, 1, 25>}}
>
>
> If you are not happy with the way the lightfading is working switch to media,
> with scattering only it doesn't add much render time: (be sure to add "hollow"
> to your isosurface or heightfield object for it to work)
>
> #declare WCol=rgb <0.217,0.552,0.877>;
> #local FD=3;
> #declare i_water =interior {
> ior 1.33
> media{
> absorption rgb 1-WCol
> density{rgb -ln(0.58)/FD}
> }
> }
>
>
> I did some very quick time comparisons for you:
>
> 1) Original iso with fading: 56s
> 2) Corrected iso (as above) with fading: 40s (big increase! doesn't have to
> calculate back intersections anymore
> 3) Corrected iso with media: 42s (only slight increase)
> 4) HF (600x600) with fading: 28s (another big decrease!)
> 5) HF (600x600) with media: 30s (again, only slight increase)
>
> Also note that changin the resoltuion of the HF only increases parse time (and
> memory usage) not render time.
>
> Hope this has all been of some help to you.
>
> -tgq
>
>
>
>
>
Trevor, thank you sincerely for all your work: you probably spent a lot
of time!
Now I'm beginning to test your suggestion in a more simple scene. I will
post the results.
Thank you again,
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Jim Charter on date 11/09/2009 20:25 wrote:
> Paolo Gibellini wrote:
>> Hallo!
>> The render of the image I had to propose for IRTC testing session is
>> ended yesterday (I have posted a version without water).
>> My home hardware is a little obsolete and after a month render was at
>> 30%, so I've asked help to a friend with a more efficient machine,
>> which completed the work in less than two weeks (ok, I need to upgrade
>> my hardware).
>> I'm not happy of the final image because it is shady and the golden
>> pieces composing the IRTC word doesn't shines as in my intention.
>> Sources in p.b.i.
>> Have a nice day,
>> ;-)
>> Paolo
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> It looks quite nice imo
Thank you, Jim!
I will try now Trevor's suggestions.
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hallo!
> The render of the image I had to propose for IRTC testing session is
> ended yesterday (I have posted a version without water).
> My home hardware is a little obsolete and after a month render was at
> 30%, so I've asked help to a friend with a more efficient machine, which
> completed the work in less than two weeks (ok, I need to upgrade my
> hardware).
> I'm not happy of the final image because it is shady and the golden
> pieces composing the IRTC word doesn't shines as in my intention.
> Sources in p.b.i.
> Have a nice day,
> ;-)
> Paolo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Did you use photons? This is a case where "caustics" can avantageously
be used.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It makes me unhappy, too. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Hallo!
> The render of the image I had to propose for IRTC testing session is
> ended yesterday (I have posted a version without water).
> My home hardware is a little obsolete and after a month render was at
> 30%, so I've asked help to a friend with a more efficient machine, which
> completed the work in less than two weeks (ok, I need to upgrade my
> hardware).
We all know what it is like to have slow CPUs. All hardware is slow in the face
of some render jobs. My brother's Tandy CC3 was actually able to compute the
Mandelbrot in 16 hours.
I'm always trying to find ways to speed up my renders. The results are not
always accurate :(
> I'm not happy of the final image because it is shady and the golden
> pieces composing the IRTC word doesn't shines as in my intention.
> Sources in p.b.i.
Ideas always shine most brightly in the mind :)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Paolo Gibellini
Subject: Re: My longest render but I'm unhappy
Date: 15 Sep 2009 07:49:44
Message: <4aaf7f58@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Alain on date 13/09/2009 02:42 wrote:
[...]
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> Did you use photons? This is a case where "caustics" can avantageously
> be used.
>
>
> Alain
Yes, the scene arises from caustics in water test.
Now I'm working on Trevor's suggestions.
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Sven Littkowski on date 13/09/2009 09:11 wrote:
> It makes me unhappy, too. ;-)
>
>
A trouble shared is a trouble halved,
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Samuel Benge on date 13/09/2009 09:19 wrote:
> Ideas always shine most brightly in the mind :)
>
> Sam
>
I agree...
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
