 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 5:50 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> 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;-)
LOL
It was already rendering when I wrote that.
A cup of tea sounds good though.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 24/02/2011 9:30 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> >> I had the same problem with Lucy, using MeshLab. Somehow I could not get it
> >> > converted.
> > What seemed to be the issue? I also converted Lucy (I think with Meshlab +
> > Poseray) a couple of years ago and had no problems. I did lower the triangle
> > count a bit, since the file size was vast and I knew most of it would be
> > sub-pixel in the scene I was making...
> >
> >
> MeshLab fails with an error message saying that the application has
> requested the Runtime to terminate in an unusual way.
>
> PoseRay might do it. But slowly, slowly!
> After about 10 minutes loading the PLY file the % completed bar is at
> about 2%.
>
> --
> Regards
> Stephen
Wow, I'm having deja vu; I converted Lucy with MeshLab and rendered a few SSLT
versions right after the feature first appeared about a year and half ago:
http://news.povray.org/web.4a9f2cce63e55f164726e92b0@news.povray.org
And uploaded the inc file to my web site, the link is here:
http://news.povray.org/web.4aa18ba663e55f164726e92b0@news.povray.org
I'm going to have to try that dragon now though...
Cheers,
Rob
-------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 5:50 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > 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;-)
>
> LOL
> It was already rendering when I wrote that.
> A cup of tea sounds good though.
You could boil the water on your cpu heatsink ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/02/2011 03:39 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> And uploaded the inc file to my web site, the link is here:
> http://news.povray.org/web.4aa18ba663e55f164726e92b0@news.povray.org
OK what am I doing wrong? I've used mesh objects before so I'm not
blazing any new territory here. I see the parse (tokens) of the object
then the render ... get an empty scene except my ground plane and light
source (zoomed way back looked u/d ... scaled too) don't see nuttin' ...
I should be able to (after including the Lucy file I downloaded from
your site and do:
object { Lucy_Statue pigment {rgb 1}}
btw stats just show 2 objects (plane and light_source)
shucks ... I wanted to play too ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 8:18 PM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> You could boil the water on your cpu heatsink;-)
I could burn the heal of my hands on my laptop. (No kidding)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
