 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> May be worth looking at your media. Do you have intervals set to
> anything larger than 1? Bring back to 1 and adjust samples as needed.
> intervals 10 samples 5 is much slower than samples 100 intervals 1.
>
> How many dispersion_samples?
>
> It don't looks like a memory isue, unless you have a ridiculously low
> amount in your computer, as you use less than 500 Mb.
Yeah the media's one thing I need to fix and save back to the library...
Really, the thing that's making it slow is the refractive objects. I
could slap no_image on them and get the nice media/photon effects in a
few minutes. Turn off the media and photons and have the tetrahedra on
and it takes a few days.
Is there any way to speed that up? How do commercial renderers compare
speedwise for refractives? What do they do differently?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4b67af7b$1@news.povray.org...
> Really, the thing that's making it slow is the refractive objects. I
> could slap no_image on them and get the nice media/photon effects in a few
> minutes. Turn off the media and photons and have the tetrahedra on and it
> takes a few days.
>
> Is there any way to speed that up? How do commercial renderers compare
> speedwise for refractives? What do they do differently?
>
> --
The keyword that comes in mind is adc_bailout... did you try setting it
higher?
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Alain wrote:
>> May be worth looking at your media. Do you have intervals set to
>> anything larger than 1? Bring back to 1 and adjust samples as needed.
>> intervals 10 samples 5 is much slower than samples 100 intervals 1.
>>
>> How many dispersion_samples?
>>
>> It don't looks like a memory isue, unless you have a ridiculously low
>> amount in your computer, as you use less than 500 Mb.
>
> Yeah the media's one thing I need to fix and save back to the library...
>
> Really, the thing that's making it slow is the refractive objects. I
> could slap no_image on them and get the nice media/photon effects in a
> few minutes. Turn off the media and photons and have the tetrahedra on
> and it takes a few days.
>
> Is there any way to speed that up? How do commercial renderers compare
> speedwise for refractives? What do they do differently?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Then, what is your max_trace_level and adc_bailout?
Often, adc_bailout 0.01 is good enough.
Your main problem looks to be many total internal reflections. With
dispersion, you can get total internal reflection for blue, but not for
red. This leads to partial doubling of the rays, blue is reflected but
cyan to red goes through with some added reflection, and the spawning of
still more dispersion rays.
What's the value for dispersion_sample? A somewhat smaller value could
be enough.
One other thing that you can try, rotate the tetrahedra a small bit. It
could be all that's needed to prevent extremely long internal paths.
Some comercials products seems to have quicker bailouts. Other may skip
on the dispersion, or fake it even more than POV-Ray does, or only apply
it for the first or last refractive surface encountered before hiting an
opaque surface. Some don't even support dispersion.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Then, what is your max_trace_level and adc_bailout?
> Often, adc_bailout 0.01 is good enough.
Was at default, trying small render with 4 and 0.02 now...
> What's the value for dispersion_sample? A somewhat smaller value could
> be enough.
Was 40, trying 20.
Reducing resolution to 400x300...
Fiddling a few other photon settings...
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh wow. Just a bit faster (just under a minute)...needs work to get
closer to previous result, but have a starting point.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Oh wow. Just a bit faster (just under a minute)...needs work to get
> closer to previous result, but have a starting point.
from 88 hours to 1 minute is a long way. :)
radiosity and photon blocks also have their own adc_bailout, keep that in mind.
BTW, you surely is really making use of all those threads and cores with 3.7,
right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> BTW, you surely is really making use of all those threads and cores with 3.7,
> right?
I'm still crawling along with 3.5, because I use Moray and it doesn't
work with newer. Here's hoping the team decides to fix it first after
final 3.7 release before waiting for POV 4.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > BTW, you surely is really making use of all those threads and cores with 3.7,
> > right?
>
> I'm still crawling along with 3.5, because I use Moray and it doesn't
> work with newer. Here's hoping the team decides to fix it first after
> final 3.7 release before waiting for POV 4.
too bad! In any case, it's a simple scene. Can't Moray just export the pov
scene and you render that with 3.7? With your i7, that alone should mean you'd
render it 8x faster at minimum.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> too bad! In any case, it's a simple scene. Can't Moray just export the pov
> scene and you render that with 3.7? With your i7, that alone should mean you'd
> render it 8x faster at minimum.
Alas, I don't have an i7 yet. That by itself should drop my render
times from 3.5 days to about 3 hours... T_T
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > too bad! In any case, it's a simple scene. Can't Moray just export the pov
> > scene and you render that with 3.7? With your i7, that alone should mean you'd
> > render it 8x faster at minimum.
>
> Alas, I don't have an i7 yet. That by itself should drop my render
> times from 3.5 days to about 3 hours... T_T
oh, I misread it then. But no, not likely it'd do that without migrating to
multiprocessing 3.7 either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
