 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ive" <ive### [at] lilysoft org> wrote in message news:4ee68d12$1@news.povray.org...
> Am 12.12.2011 22:37, schrieb Dre:
>> Awesome!
>
> Thanks.
>
>>How did you get that real nice blue light to work??
>
> Well, the construction of the ceiling, the dome and the whole lighting is
> so simple that I'm almost ashamed of it ;)
>
> It is really just a clipped_by sphere and a torus (both with a radial
> texture and emission) and one spotlight.
> The spotlight simulates two things at once:
> - the "daylight lamp" that would simulate the sun within the arboretum and
> is currently close to zenith.
> - the "light tubes" surrounding the dome.
> The radius of the spotlight matches exactly the dome radius and the
> falloff is adjusted to match the top of the port and starboard window
> walls. It is yellow/red to compensate for the blue dome color and the blue
> tint produced by radiosity. So we get an average white daylight condition
> under the dome and a slightly bluish tint at the outside due the falloff
> of the spotlight.
>
> light_source { <0,10,0> rgb <0.90, 0.85, 0.75>*5
> spotlight point_at <0,0,0> radius 48 falloff 66
> area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 5,5 adaptive 2 circular orient
> fade_power 2 fade_distance FD*2
> projected_through {Ceiling}
> }
>
> This together with moderate radiosity settings
>
> radiosity {
> pretrace_start 0.08
> pretrace_end 2/max(image_width,image_height)
> count 250
> nearest_count 10
> error_bound 0.45
> recursion_limit 1
> low_error_factor 0.5
> gray_threshold 0
> minimum_reuse 0.015
> brightness 1.0
> adc_bailout 0.01/2
> always_sample off
> normal off
> }
>
> produced the original image at 1920x1080 pixel within 24 hours - and I
> consider this also as quite moderate given the incredible amount of grass
> blades, leaves and petals ;)
>
> -Ive
Great stuff, sometimes the simple things are the best way to do things!
Thanks for the description, I'll sure have a play with that and see what I
can come up with :)
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-12-2011 1:31, Ive wrote:
> But I really do not have any rank in Starfleet ;)
Arboretum First Officer, I would say ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> light_source { <0,10,0> rgb <0.90, 0.85, 0.75>*5
> spotlight point_at <0,0,0> radius 48 falloff 66
> area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 5,5 adaptive 2 circular orient
> fade_power 2 fade_distance FD*2
> projected_through {Ceiling}
> }
>
> -Ive
Here, adaptive have no effect.
adaptive 1 start at 3 by 3
adaptive 2 start at 5 by 5
adaptive 3 start at 9 by 9
...
area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 9,9 adaptive 2 circular orient only have a
marginal advantage.
adaptive 2 start to have a notable speed advantage at 17 by 17 and more.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Inside the arboretum...
Wow, Ive, that's an awesome render. I especially like the ground cover; it
really gives me some ideas :)
~Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.12.2011 01:40, schrieb Samuel Benge:
>
> I especially like the ground cover; it
> really gives me some ideas :)
>
Great. To me your images have always been a source of inspiration ;) and
I really like your ongoing experimenting and your incredible good eye
for details.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.12.2011 05:41, schrieb Alain:
> Here, adaptive have no effect.
> adaptive 1 start at 3 by 3
> adaptive 2 start at 5 by 5
> adaptive 3 start at 9 by 9
> ...
>
> area_light x*0.67 z*0.67 9,9 adaptive 2 circular orient only have a
> marginal advantage.
> adaptive 2 start to have a notable speed advantage at 17 by 17 and more.
>
Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand you correct. You mean using adaptive 2
makes only sense when using *more* than 5 by 5, right?
Actually I never did a serious speed/quality trade-off compare regarding
area_lights parameters and used more a "I guess this might work" and
alternatively a "better more than less" approach. Probably not a good
idea, so thanks for the head up.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand you correct. You mean using adaptive 2
> makes only sense when using *more* than 5 by 5, right?
Yes. These are from my notes:
Array Size Maximum Useful Value Break-Even Value
2 x 2 none 0
3 x 3 0 1
5 x 5 1 2
9 x 9 2 3
17 x 17 3 4
33 x 33 4 5
Accordingly, adaptive 2 has no effect on 5 by 5.
> Actually I never did a serious speed/quality trade-off compare regarding
> area_lights parameters and used more a "I guess this might work" and
> alternatively a "better more than less" approach. Probably not a good
> idea, so thanks for the head up.
I've done such comparisons, based on Alain's advice. My general findings are:
- Adaptive 0 tends to produce unrealistic effects, especially if
an object (e.g., the lamp fixture!) is close to the light source.
- Adaptive 1 is sufficient; I haven't had the need to go higher.
- IIRC, 9 by 9 adaptive 0 was faster than 5 by 5 adaptive 1. (I
don't know if that test can be generalized.) However, the poor
quality of the adaptive 0 usually isn't worth the speed advantage.
- Jitter helps.
- 9 by 9 adaptive 1 is usually a good setting.
However, I haven't tested 9 by 9 adaptive 1 against 5 by 5 adaptive 2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> - Adaptive 1 is sufficient; I haven't had the need to go higher.
BTW, what is the default value? I didn't find that in the docs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/20/2011 04:56 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> - Adaptive 1 is sufficient; I haven't had the need to go higher.
>
> BTW, what is the default value? I didn't find that in the docs.
yikes ... you are correct! If someone knows what the default is I'll
make sure it get added in the appropriate place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 04:56 PM, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> > BTW, what is the default value? I didn't find that in the docs.
>
> yikes ... you are correct! If someone knows what the default is I'll
> make sure it get added in the appropriate place.
There is no default value. According to the syntax diagram (and a quick test
corroborates this), the adaptive keyword requires a value. Without the adaptive
keyword, there is no adaptive sampling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
