 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/03/2011 9:19 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> object { Lucy_Statue pigment {rgb 1}}
>
> btw stats just show 2 objects (plane and light_source)
>
> shucks ... I wanted to play too;-)
Try
object { Lucy pigment {rgb 1}}
Or
object { Lucy pigment {rgb 1}
scale <0.010000,0.010000,0.010000>
rotate <-90.000000,0.000000,0.000000>
translate <0.000000,6.000000,0.000000>
}
There is an offset and she's on her back (too much ambrosia IMO)
Then join the fun :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.03.2011 12:59, schrieb Bill Pragnell:
> 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 :)
I'd expect AA - instead of increasing samples - to give a benefit
nonetheless, as it avoids increasing the number of samples shot in areas
where everything is smooth as a baby's behind.
(I personally favor focal blur over AA though, as I think the
confidence/variance approach is superior the AA's mechanism.)
> 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).
The "mm_per_unit" ratio specifies - not surprisingly - how many mm are
in a POV-Ray unit.
This is required because the subsurface coefficients are specified in
[average scattering/absorption events] "per mm", rather than "per
POV-Ray unit", in order to faciliate creating re-usable material
libraries. Otherwise what would like marble in one scene might look like
soap in another, depending on the scene's dimensions.
If you feel like multiplying "mm_per_unit" by some value just to make
your material look right, instead divide the coefficients by that value.
> 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.
Yup, that's exactly the point of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/02/2011 06:28 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 9:19 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> object { Lucy_Statue pigment {rgb 1}}
>>
>> btw stats just show 2 objects (plane and light_source)
>>
>> shucks ... I wanted to play too;-)
>
>
> Try
> object { Lucy pigment {rgb 1}}
>
> Or
> object { Lucy pigment {rgb 1}
> scale <0.010000,0.010000,0.010000>
> rotate <-90.000000,0.000000,0.000000>
> translate <0.000000,6.000000,0.000000>
>
> }
>
> There is an offset and she's on her back (too much ambrosia IMO)
>
> Then join the fun :-)
>
thanks uncle steve ... didn't need the rotate, however still odd stats
behavior /without/ scale ... sheesh tried scale 0.1 when I didn't get
any joy moved the cam WAY back and still nuttin' ... long day (yawn)
Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
then /with/ scale
Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesh 260598 109403 41.98
Bounding Box 31313889 8252368 26.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shadow Ray Tests: 50670 Succeeded: 21223
Shadow Cache Hits: 21221
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> I'd expect AA - instead of increasing samples - to give a benefit
> nonetheless, as it avoids increasing the number of samples shot in areas
> where everything is smooth as a baby's behind.
I was a bit more scientific about it yesterday, and it seems aa is more helpful
than I thought - I had some reflection in the texture before that was confusing
the issue.
> (I personally favor focal blur over AA though, as I think the
> confidence/variance approach is superior the AA's mechanism.)
Agreed!
> The "mm_per_unit" ratio specifies - not surprisingly - how many mm are
> in a POV-Ray unit.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough, I meant the ratio of "mm_per_unit" to the
magnitude of the subsurface values. But your other comments make it much clearer
what's going on, I hadn't realised the subsurface coefficients were mm-1.
(should have read the reference paper!)
> If you feel like multiplying "mm_per_unit" by some value just to make
> your material look right, instead divide the coefficients by that value.
Right.
Thanks for the clarification. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 12:52 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> thanks uncle steve ... didn't need the rotate, however still odd stats
> behavior/without/ scale ... sheesh tried scale 0.1 when I didn't get
> any joy moved the cam WAY back and still nuttin' ... long day (yawn)
>
>
> Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> then/with/ scale
> Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mesh 260598 109403 41.98
> Bounding Box 31313889 8252368 26.35
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shadow Ray Tests: 50670 Succeeded: 21223
> Shadow Cache Hits: 21221
Wimp! ;-)
Mesh 7855178046 4549713063 57.92
Bounding Box 1118966758944 315950707952 28.24
Shadow Ray Tests: 7404170367 Succeeded: 4072760477
Shadow Cache Hits: 129165794
Trace Time: 6 hours 47 minutes 10 seconds (24430.593 seconds)
using 6 thread(s) with 141346.808 CPU-seconds total
I've uploaded to povray.binaries.misc a cut down version of the mesh, if
that is any help.
I can now see the advantage of using a modeller that has an OpenGl display.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
