 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.03.2011 13:05, schrieb Stephen:
> What might be of help, if you can do it, is to simplify the model. Using
> a trial version of 3DS Max I reduced the vertex count to 20% of the
> original (28 Meg, 9 Meg zipped)
Very beautiful texture!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/03/2011 11:58 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Here's my little attempt. Rendered in 10mins, without aa though. One thing I've
> noticed is that I get a large number of bright single-pixel artifacts unless I
> use large sample counts (using 1000,100 here), even when also using aa. Is there
> any way to avoid this, or is it just the nature of the beast?
Nice but use aa it makes a difference. My samples are only 100, 50. Back
lighting makes a difference as well.
I used mm_per_unit = 1.105 for the first one and 28.6 for the green one.
It took well over an hour.
Your image looks more like marble what settings did you you use?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 12:09 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.03.2011 13:05, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> What might be of help, if you can do it, is to simplify the model. Using
>> a trial version of 3DS Max I reduced the vertex count to 20% of the
>> original (28 Meg, 9 Meg zipped)
>
> Very beautiful texture!
Thanks but as I said to Jim it is the marble from the paper.
I like the jade one posted later better.
I'm going to run some more test renders overnight.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 12:14 AM, Stephen wrote:
> My samples are only 100, 50.
I lied, I've just noticed that they are 500, 250
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Nice but use aa it makes a difference.
But does it? I thought aa was wasted on otherwise supersampled features like
area lights, focal blur, media etc? The edges of lucy's self-shadows are lovely,
it's just the floor shadow and her horizon that show aliasing. I'll do some aa
tests tonight.
> Your image looks more like marble what settings did you you use?
Excellent, I was shooting for a very translucent marble.
mm_per_unit = 80 (the model is about 1 unit high)
samples 1000, 100 (only way I could get rid of bright point artifacts)
subsurface { 5*colour, 0.5*(1-colour) } (IIRC!)
Bill
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 9:19 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Nice but use aa it makes a difference.
>
> But does it? I thought aa was wasted on otherwise supersampled features like
> area lights, focal blur, media etc? The edges of lucy's self-shadows are lovely,
> it's just the floor shadow and her horizon that show aliasing. I'll do some aa
> tests tonight.
>
I did a test without aa and there are more artefacts in the non-aa
rendering.
>> Your image looks more like marble what settings did you you use?
>
> Excellent, I was shooting for a very translucent marble.
>
> mm_per_unit = 80 (the model is about 1 unit high)
> samples 1000, 100 (only way I could get rid of bright point artifacts)
> subsurface { 5*colour, 0.5*(1-colour) } (IIRC!)
>
So your model is about 80 mm (3 inches) why pick that value?
This is something I'm having difficulty getting my head around. :-(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> I did a test without aa and there are more artefacts in the non-aa
> rendering.
I see what you mean. The artifacts were definitely lessened by aa, but they were
lessened much more by increasing the sampling :)
> > mm_per_unit = 80 (the model is about 1 unit high)
> > samples 1000, 100 (only way I could get rid of bright point artifacts)
> > subsurface { 5*colour, 0.5*(1-colour) } (IIRC!)
>
> So your model is about 80 mm (3 inches) why pick that value?
> This is something I'm having difficulty getting my head around. :-(
Well, I was basically just tweaking until it looked good. I don't really
understand what the subsurface:mm_per_unit ratio means, although the
scattering:absorption ratio of the subsurface values seems more intuitive (not
dissimilar to media).
I think the mm_per_unit value kind of makes sense - most everyday experience
with translucent stone objects is small statues/knick-knacks. For larger items
(metres and larger), I would expect the translucency to be much more subtle, or
even invisible, due to the greater path lengths.
I think word-of-god elucidation is required :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 11:59 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> I did a test without aa and there are more artefacts in the non-aa
>> rendering.
>
> I see what you mean. The artifacts were definitely lessened by aa, but they were
> lessened much more by increasing the sampling :)
>
OK, that saves me some experimenting.
>
> Well, I was basically just tweaking until it looked good. I don't really
> understand what the subsurface:mm_per_unit ratio means, although the
> scattering:absorption ratio of the subsurface values seems more intuitive (not
> dissimilar to media).
>
I agree that the subsurface values seems more intuitive.
> I think the mm_per_unit value kind of makes sense - most everyday experience
> with translucent stone objects is small statues/knick-knacks. For larger items
> (metres and larger), I would expect the translucency to be much more subtle, or
> even invisible, due to the greater path lengths.
>
> I think word-of-god elucidation is required :)
>
>
I think that I'll wait until RC4, where the syntax will change, before
playing any more.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 9:19 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> mm_per_unit = 80
Using your setting of mm_per_unit 80 and subsurface {samples 500, 100 }
I think that this one turns out nice. It took five and a half hours to
after my laptop overheated)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lucy10_01c_.jpg' (183 KB)
Preview of image 'lucy10_01c_.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/02/2011 01:40 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 9:19 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> mm_per_unit = 80
>
> Using your setting of mm_per_unit 80 and subsurface {samples 500, 100 }
> I think that this one turns out nice. It took five and a half hours to
> after my laptop overheated)
>
>
I thought you were gonna wait for RC4
Now go have a cup of tea and let the ole laptop cool down for a bit ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
