 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 9:26 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> 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.:)
>
>
Me too. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 9:26 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> > (I personally favor focal blur over AA though, as I think the
>> > confidence/variance approach is superior the AA's mechanism.)
> Agreed!
>
I've not used focal blur much. What settings would be a good starting point?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/3/2011 5:09 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 9:26 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> > (I personally favor focal blur over AA though, as I think the
>>> > confidence/variance approach is superior the AA's mechanism.)
>> Agreed!
>>
>
> I've not used focal blur much. What settings would be a good starting
> point?
>
My personal recipe:
Confidence .9
Variance 1/64
Samples to taste, for quicker renders, 10 does the job. For final
renders I'll go as high as 1000.
Why 1/64 on variance? Well, pixel-to-pixel it's very hard to see the
difference between a value that's 4 levels different than the next
(Though 3.7's gamma may change that in shadow or highlight areas) If you
must, go for the default variance. It slows a little bit, but not much.
As for confidence? Dunno. .9 is just sort of an arbitrary value.
Either than or start with the defaults, They're good enough (except
samples) occasionally I'll push confidence to 3 nines or even 4 nines,
if I think I'm going to get anything out of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 06:03 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I've uploaded to povray.binaries.misc a cut down version of the mesh, if
> that is any help.
cool .. thanks my brother from another mother
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/03/2011 1:50 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/03/2011 06:03 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I've uploaded to povray.binaries.misc a cut down version of the mesh, if
>> that is any help.
>
> cool .. thanks my brother from another mother
>
LOL
Whatever you're smoking, I want some. :-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
