On 28-11-2012 16:22, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 04:36 PM, BertvdB wrote:
>> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>> Here's the 1st test render, everything is fairly mono-chrome for now.
>>> Lot's more noodles to come ... only 250 here. I have a kitchen HDR and I
>>> think I can get this one to look like it's on the counter.I'm also
>>> considering sslt for the noodles, however I'm worried about the render
>>> time. If I texture one noodle and call it a bunch of times, it shouldn't
>>> be too bad ;-)
>>
>> It needs for sure some colouring, now it looks like a cannister of
>> maggots
>>
>>
> LOL ... funny but not helpful ;-)
>
> How's this ...
>

Going well. You might increase the yellow component of the noodles a 
bit. Just looked at some in my kitchen and that seems the main 
difference with your image.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2012 05:00 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:

>> How's this ...
>
>    Much better... the tiling work is very nice, BTW.

used Sam's OddTilesObject include ... just define the corners and it 
does the rest.

>
>> I think I've settled on this "kitchen counter" pose. I had to redo
>> the noodle simulation, I noticed some intersections. I just gave the
>> even numbered noodles a slightly less "mass" value. The utensils/rack
>> are a model I found ... it needed some work, but wouldn't import into
>> blender, but would in poseray. I'm going to keep the  utensils and
>> make my own rack.
>>
>
>    Curiously, I've been thinking on making a simulation of my cutlery set
> falling vertically into a rack, to obtain a rack full of realistically
> placed flatware.

LOL ... I've got idea's queued up too, just can't make the objects quick 
enough ;-)

>
>> I think I'm close to over doing the angular look I have going on ...
>> so to break that up, I'm working on a pepper-mill for the foreground
>> (left) tipped on it's side (into the scene) with some peppercorns
>> scattered on the counter.
>
>    Nice touch... but don't forget to put a cheese piece somewhere. :)

Yeah a simple shape ... that may be my fall back. I've been working on a 
garlic bulb with some of the cloves detached

Post a reply to this message

On 11/29/2012 07:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 28-11-2012 16:22, James Holsenback wrote:
>> On 11/23/2012 04:36 PM, BertvdB wrote:
>>> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>>> Here's the 1st test render, everything is fairly mono-chrome for now.
>>>> Lot's more noodles to come ... only 250 here. I have a kitchen HDR
>>>> and I
>>>> think I can get this one to look like it's on the counter.I'm also
>>>> considering sslt for the noodles, however I'm worried about the render
>>>> time. If I texture one noodle and call it a bunch of times, it
>>>> shouldn't
>>>> be too bad ;-)
>>>
>>> It needs for sure some colouring, now it looks like a cannister of
>>> maggots
>>>
>>>
>> LOL ... funny but not helpful ;-)
>>
>> How's this ...
>>
>
> Going well. You might increase the yellow component of the noodles a
> bit. Just looked at some in my kitchen and that seems the main
> difference with your image.
>
> Thomas
>
>
I was thinking subsurface might bring it the rest of the way ... I've 
also had some interesting results with back-side diffuse ... the later 
with thin stuff, but think it's worth a try anyways :-)

Post a reply to this message

> On 11/29/2012 07:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 28-11-2012 16:22, James Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2012 04:36 PM, BertvdB wrote:
>>>> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>>>> Here's the 1st test render, everything is fairly mono-chrome for now.
>>>>> Lot's more noodles to come ... only 250 here. I have a kitchen HDR
>>>>> and I
>>>>> think I can get this one to look like it's on the counter.I'm also
>>>>> considering sslt for the noodles, however I'm worried about the render
>>>>> time. If I texture one noodle and call it a bunch of times, it
>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>> be too bad ;-)
>>>>
>>>> It needs for sure some colouring, now it looks like a cannister of
>>>> maggots
>>>>
>>>>
>>> LOL ... funny but not helpful ;-)
>>>
>>> How's this ...
>>>
>>
>> Going well. You might increase the yellow component of the noodles a
>> bit. Just looked at some in my kitchen and that seems the main
>> difference with your image.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
> I was thinking subsurface might bring it the rest of the way ... I've
> also had some interesting results with back-side diffuse ... the later
> with thin stuff, but think it's worth a try anyways :-)

Back-side diffuse works prety well with radiosity when your stuff is not 
thin, just need to increase recursion_limit by 1. In some cases, it may 
be used as a cheaper substitute to subsurface, just as fog can cheaply 
replace media and shadowless lights simulate radiosity.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 11/28/2012 10:22 AM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 04:36 PM, BertvdB wrote:
>> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>> Here's the 1st test render, everything is fairly mono-chrome for now.
>>> Lot's more noodles to come ... only 250 here. I have a kitchen HDR and I
>>> think I can get this one to look like it's on the counter.I'm also
>>> considering sslt for the noodles, however I'm worried about the render
>>> time. If I texture one noodle and call it a bunch of times, it shouldn't
>>> be too bad ;-)
>>
>> It needs for sure some colouring, now it looks like a cannister of
>> maggots
>>
>>
> LOL ... funny but not helpful ;-)
>
> How's this ...
>
> I think I've settled on this "kitchen counter" pose. I had to redo the
> noodle simulation, I noticed some intersections. I just gave the even
> numbered noodles a slightly less "mass" value. The utensils/rack are a
> model I found ... it needed some work, but wouldn't import into blender,
> but would in poseray. I'm going to keep the  utensils and make my own rack.
>
> I think I'm close to over doing the angular look I have going on ... so
> to break that up, I'm working on a pepper-mill for the foreground (left)
> tipped on it's side (into the scene) with some peppercorns scattered on
> the counter.

Ah ... well the pepper-mill turned out so good, the canister just didn't 
measure up. It's out for now unless I get the ambition to rework that 
object. I also completely re-did the wire rack ... and LOL yes I 
reworked the chrome as well. I also repositioned the counter area to get 
more hdr image and less counter-top in the reflections.

For the physics simulation I used just the glass container and the shaft 
down the middle (resting on ground plane) ... I was able to get over 
2000 without much strain on resources, because I used the built-in 
sphere object instead of 3ds the version of peppercorns ... the program 
would only make it to something around 750 before it just quit loading.

Now I have a question .... because holy crap my first stab at photons in 
this scene took 28 hrs and it just didn't suit. I think some of the rays 
are getting through the gaps between the peppercorns. I've been reading 
(and re-reading) the docs on photons and I'm unclear about the setup I'm 
using. I'd like to trim some time off that process and here's what I have:

union {	
   object { PepperMill scale 1.01 #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
   object { Peppercorns #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
   translate <-120,0,12.5>
   rotate y*60
   #if (UsePhotons)
     photons { target reflection on refraction on collect off }
   #end
   }

The peppercorns are a union of all the peppercorns is why I did it like 
that, and just wanted a reality check so I don't waste another 28 hrs!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (592 KB)

Preview of image 'work.png'

> Now I have a question .... because holy crap my first stab at photons in
> this scene took 28 hrs and it just didn't suit. I think some of the rays
> are getting through the gaps between the peppercorns. I've been reading
> (and re-reading) the docs on photons and I'm unclear about the setup I'm
> using. I'd like to trim some time off that process and here's what I have:
>
> union {
>    object { PepperMill scale 1.01 #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
>    object { Peppercorns #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
>    translate <-120,0,12.5>
>    rotate y*60
>    #if (UsePhotons)
>      photons { target reflection on refraction on collect off }
>    #end
>    }
>
> The peppercorns are a union of all the peppercorns is why I did it like
> that, and just wanted a reality check so I don't waste another 28 hrs!

I'm not sure that turning split_union off help you. If the union is 
split, you stop checking if you hit any object of the union, but, if you 
don't split it, each ray must test against all of your 2000 peper corns, 
even those on the oposite side or in the middle that have no hope of 
ever interacting with your photons...
Anyway, do a test using only mockup spheres and one photons target 
object shining photons on the whole thing. Compare with and without 
split_union off.

Not splitting the union of the peper mill itself may help in some cases, 
but it also may not.
Do a test render with the empty peper mill and simple planes to collect 
the photons and compare the performances with and without split_union off.

You don't need to use the conditional expression for your photons block. 
In a non-photons scene, any photons block is just silently ignored.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 04:55 PM, Alain wrote:

>
>> Now I have a question .... because holy crap my first stab at photons in
>> this scene took 28 hrs and it just didn't suit. I think some of the rays
>> are getting through the gaps between the peppercorns. I've been reading
>> (and re-reading) the docs on photons and I'm unclear about the setup I'm
>> using. I'd like to trim some time off that process and here's what I
>> have:
>>
>> union {
>>    object { PepperMill scale 1.01 #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
>>    object { Peppercorns #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
>>    translate <-120,0,12.5>
>>    rotate y*60
>>    #if (UsePhotons)
>>      photons { target reflection on refraction on collect off }
>>    #end
>>    }
>>
>> The peppercorns are a union of all the peppercorns is why I did it like
>> that, and just wanted a reality check so I don't waste another 28 hrs!
>
> I'm not sure that turning split_union off help you. If the union is
> split, you stop checking if you hit any object of the union, but, if you
> don't split it, each ray must test against all of your 2000 peper corns,
> even those on the oposite side or in the middle that have no hope of
> ever interacting with your photons...
> Anyway, do a test using only mockup spheres and one photons target
> object shining photons on the whole thing. Compare with and without
> split_union off.
>
> Not splitting the union of the peper mill itself may help in some cases,
> but it also may not.
> Do a test render with the empty peper mill and simple planes to collect
> the photons and compare the performances with and without split_union off.
>
> You don't need to use the conditional expression for your photons block.
> In a non-photons scene, any photons block is just silently ignored.
>
>
> Alain

Thanks for the nudge ...

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2012 04:55 PM, Alain wrote:

>
>> Now I have a question .... because holy crap my first stab at photons in
>> this scene took 28 hrs and it just didn't suit. I think some of the rays
>> are getting through the gaps between the peppercorns. I've been reading
>> (and re-reading) the docs on photons and I'm unclear about the setup I'm
>> using. I'd like to trim some time off that process and here's what I
>> have:
>>
>> union {
>>    object { PepperMill scale 1.01 #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
>>    object { Peppercorns #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
>>    translate <-120,0,12.5>
>>    rotate y*60
>>    #if (UsePhotons)
>>      photons { target reflection on refraction on collect off }
>>    #end
>>    }
>>
>> The peppercorns are a union of all the peppercorns is why I did it like
>> that, and just wanted a reality check so I don't waste another 28 hrs!
>
> I'm not sure that turning split_union off help you. If the union is
> split, you stop checking if you hit any object of the union, but, if you
> don't split it, each ray must test against all of your 2000 peper corns,
> even those on the oposite side or in the middle that have no hope of
> ever interacting with your photons...
> Anyway, do a test using only mockup spheres and one photons target
> object shining photons on the whole thing. Compare with and without
> split_union off.
>
> Not splitting the union of the peper mill itself may help in some cases,
> but it also may not.
> Do a test render with the empty peper mill and simple planes to collect
> the photons and compare the performances with and without split_union off.
>
> You don't need to use the conditional expression for your photons block.
> In a non-photons scene, any photons block is just silently ignored.
>
>
> Alain

Well after running a few test cases it became painfully obvious that the 
peppercorns were the culprit ...

split_union off on the empty pepper-mill showed a gain in performance of 
a little more than 30% (photon time) ... on just the peppercorns about 
the same gain in photon time, but the render time increased by over 10x!!!

Using pass_through on the peppercorns just didn't seem to make any sense 
for this case, so I took the peppercorns out of the pepper-mill union 
and added them as a separate instance ... they appeared incorrectly 
shaded, so back into the pepper-mill union.

While going over the docs yet again, the "Using Photon Mapping in Your 
Scene" section in the reference gave me the idea to try (with what 
appears to be favorable results) the following :

union {	
   object { PepperMill scale 1.01 #if (UsePhotons) split_union off #end }
   object { Peppercorns
   #if (UsePhotons)
     photons { reflection off refraction off collect off }
   #end
   }
   translate <-120,0,12.5>
   rotate y*60
   #if (UsePhotons)
     photons { target reflection on refraction on collect off }
   #end
   }

The photon global settings previously used (that yielded 28 hrs render 
time) now comes in at 35 min photon time and 13 min render time! Now I 
hope I can decrease my spacing parameter (for better results) and save 
that photon map, then move on to working on the radiosity :-)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'work.png' (602 KB)

Preview of image 'work.png'

> The photon global settings previously used (that yielded 28 hrs render
> time) now comes in at 35 min photon time and 13 min render time! Now I
> hope I can decrease my spacing parameter (for better results) and save
> that photon map, then move on to working on the radiosity :-)

You can fine tune the spacing on a per object basis using target.

target can be followed by a float. That value is a multiplicator to the 
spacing.
If you use target 0.5, the spacing for that object will be half the 
general spacing resulting in shooting 4 times as many photons to that 
object, and 8 times as many photons in a media.
Using target 2 will double the spacing and thus divide the photons 
density by 4 for that object.

It's good if you have about the right photons density in general but 
some object need more, or can do with less, photons.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.12.2012 16:25, schrieb James Holsenback:

> The photon global settings previously used (that yielded 28 hrs render
> time) now comes in at 35 min photon time and 13 min render time! Now I
> hope I can decrease my spacing parameter (for better results) and save
> that photon map, then move on to working on the radiosity :-)


I'm sorry to say it, Jim, but to me the pepper mill looks more like some 
bubblegum vending machine...

Post a reply to this message