On 12/03/2011 8:40 PM, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT,
>> it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(
>
> I agree, that's why I further developed my multipass render tricks this last
> weekend. The technique allows you to render the subsurface pass separately,
> without radiosity or area lights and it's then pretty fast, even with focal
> blur.
>
> Then you can render the regular shot without subsurface, but with radiosity,
> area lights, etc. and just screen the subsurface pass on top. It's a HUGE
> render-time saver.
>

That sounds a great time saver. At the moment I'm rendering a Poser Mesh 
at 14 PPS and that's without area lights or radiosity.
I think I must have the settings wrong. :-(
Well tomorrow will show how it comes out. (I hope)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 7:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
> > optimize away media-based SSS.
> >
>
> Don't ask me ;-)

my bad: as McGregor noticed in another thread, SSS plays bad with radiosity like
radiosity used to play with reflections, but you can still render fast SSS
results and composite them with a radiosity scene. :)

> > have you guys been using the full-resolution model or the highest resolution
> > decimated version?
>
> I've been using my own decimated version. I reduced is as far as I could
> and still keep most of the detail.

I've used the highest resolution decimated version from this:

ftp://graphics.stanford.edu/pub/3Dscanrep/dragon/dragon_recon.tar.gz

to "photograph" this miniature:

http://i54.tinypic.com/s0wj1c.jpg

sadly this tone mapped and defocused composite can't quite show off the
different SSLT in the 3 figures (lot in the front, quite less in second dragon
and none in the one behind), so here's the raw render from Blender:

http://i54.tinypic.com/69m4d4.jpg

took 15 minutes on a Q6600.  Then again, SSS in Blender is just a post-process
involving the shadows and the z-buffer.  Much like the focal blur too...

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.03.2011 20:47, schrieb nemesis:

>> The image does seem to be missing something. That's a problem with SSLT,
>> it is back to the days of slooow renders. :-(
>
> BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
> optimize away media-based SSS.

Patience, people! Performance improvements are yet to come; the current 
implementation is still a most basic brute-force approach.

As for using more common SSS algorithms, they all require UV-mapped 
meshes to work, and therefore are unsuited for use in POV-Ray in their 
original form, and either produce far inferior results (simple depht-map 
based SSS), wouldn't give any significant performance benefits when 
adapted accordingly while still being physically less accurate 
(oversampled depth-map based SSS), or simply cannot be adapted to 
POV-Ray at all (texture space diffusion).

Post a reply to this message

On 12/03/2011 10:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 12/03/2011 7:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> BTW, I thought povray's SSLT (why not the more common SSS?) was supposed to
>>> optimize away media-based SSS.
>>>
>>
>> Don't ask me ;-)
>
> my bad: as McGregor noticed in another thread, SSS plays bad with radiosity like
> radiosity used to play with reflections, but you can still render fast SSS
> results and composite them with a radiosity scene. :)
>

Yes, your bad. It is impolite to call someone by their surname without 
their title. It sounds disrespectful.


>
> I've used the highest resolution decimated version from this:
>
> ftp://graphics.stanford.edu/pub/3Dscanrep/dragon/dragon_recon.tar.gz
>

Thanks for the link. I didn't know of it. :-)

> to "photograph" this miniature:
>
> http://i54.tinypic.com/s0wj1c.jpg
>
> sadly this tone mapped and defocused composite can't quite show off the
> different SSLT in the 3 figures (lot in the front, quite less in second dragon
> and none in the one behind), so here's the raw render from Blender:
>

Shame about the focal blur. :-(



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 10:47 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > my bad: as McGregor noticed in another thread, SSS plays bad with radiosity like
> > radiosity used to play with reflections, but you can still render fast SSS
> > results and composite them with a radiosity scene. :)
> >
>
> Yes, your bad. It is impolite to call someone by their surname without
> their title. It sounds disrespectful.

Is it so Comrade Stephen?  I wouldn't know -- perhaps call him Chevalier
McGregor?  McGregor-san?

I think on the internet titles are irrelevant, specially as people from all over
the world gather around.  It'd be silly to call me "Mr. Nemesis" or something...

> > to "photograph" this miniature:
> >
> > http://i54.tinypic.com/s0wj1c.jpg
> >
> > sadly this tone mapped and defocused composite can't quite show off the
> > different SSLT in the 3 figures (lot in the front, quite less in second dragon
> > and none in the one behind), so here's the raw render from Blender:
> >
>
> Shame about the focal blur. :-(

but macro photography is all about focal blur! o_O

http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/04/gallery_faves_macro_photos/macro_faves_1.jpg

Post a reply to this message

On 13/03/2011 4:43 PM, nemesis wrote:

>
> Is it so Comrade Stephen?  I wouldn't know -- perhaps call him Chevalier
> McGregor?  McGregor-san?
>

That is up to Robert.

> I think on the internet titles are irrelevant, specially as people from all over
> the world gather around.  It'd be silly to call me "Mr. Nemesis" or something...
>


reeks of times gone by (and not ancient history either), when our 
*Masters* and *Betters* (may they all rot in Hell) showed their social 
superiority by not giving a person their title.
Oh! And Comrade Stephen fits quite well, brother.


>>
>> Shame about the focal blur. :-(
>
> but macro photography is all about focal blur! o_O
>
>
http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/04/gallery_faves_macro_photos/macro_faves_1.jpg
>

True, for artistic purposes it does but it is self defeating when you 
are trying to show off another technique.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 13/03/2011 4:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > I think on the internet titles are irrelevant, specially as people from all over
> > the world gather around.  It'd be silly to call me "Mr. Nemesis" or something...
> >
>

> reeks of times gone by (and not ancient history either), when our
> *Masters* and *Betters* (may they all rot in Hell) showed their social
> superiority by not giving a person their title.

My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
of it. :)

It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.

> Oh! And Comrade Stephen fits quite well, brother.

ok, comrade! :)

> >> Shame about the focal blur. :-(
> >
> > but macro photography is all about focal blur! o_O
> >
> >
http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/2008/04/gallery_faves_macro_photos/macro_faves_1.jpg
> >
>
> True, for artistic purposes it does but it is self defeating when you
> are trying to show off another technique.

oh, I got you, huh?  You thought I was trying to impress you with SSS, but I was
just enjoying those bokeh! ;)

in any case, I provided the raw render to compare the different SSS levels...
too much and it looks really like a miniature...

Post a reply to this message

On 13/03/2011 6:26 PM, nemesis wrote:
> My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
> of it.:)
>
> It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.
>

Where is *here*?


>> >  Oh! And Comrade Stephen fits quite well, brother.
> ok, comrade!:)
>

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/songs/rf-t-mw.mp2

Or

http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/songs/rf-wc-dg.mp2


>> >  True, for artistic purposes it does but it is self defeating when you
>> >  are trying to show off another technique.
> oh, I got you, huh?  You thought I was trying to impress you with SSS, but I was
> just enjoying those bokeh!;)
>

No, not impress me but show the beauty of SSLT.

> in any case, I provided the raw render to compare the different SSS levels...
> too much and it looks really like a miniature...
>
>
Indeed!

Nice images, if I didn't say.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 13/03/2011 6:26 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
> > of it.:)
> >
> > It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.
> >
>
> Where is *here*?

Brazil.  Quite a surreal country... :p

Post a reply to this message

On 13/03/2011 7:28 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 13/03/2011 6:26 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>> My coworkers and friends call me by surname all the time, they enjoy the sound
>>> of it.:)
>>>
>>> It's not unpolite at all nor quite formal here.
>>>

I just thought you should know.

>>
>> Where is *here*?
>
> Brazil.  Quite a surreal country... :p
>

I remember now. Not that Brazil is a surreal country


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message