 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
don't ask me, what I had in mind as I put this image together ....
but more then the image itself the render time did hurt (~2400h @P3;1GHz).
I had to raise the photons gather values to something insane like 300, 2000 to
smooth out the photon map (~140MB).
Lower values gave just a bunch of sparkles ....
If anybody got good ideas to avoid these render times on scenes with a lot
reflective/refractive objects I would be happy.
... dave
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'lost_tooth.jpg' (117 KB)
Preview of image 'lost_tooth.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gah! >_<
OK, now I'm in pain...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David El Tom" <dav### [at] t-online de> schreef in bericht
news:440042aa@news.povray.org...
> don't ask me, what I had in mind as I put this image together ....
>
> but more then the image itself the render time did hurt (~2400h @P3;1GHz).
> I had to raise the photons gather values to something insane like 300,
2000 to
> smooth out the photon map (~140MB).
> Lower values gave just a bunch of sparkles ....
>
....but it has been worth it!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Perhaps an odd thing to say, but... a beautiful picture.
Where's the tooth decay, though? Or was that the idea? Nice clean tooth and
yet pulled. Interesting. And amazing to see this made so well.
100 days!? Yow! I can imagine why you're asking how to speed that up then.
If you had saved the photon map maybe that would be one idea, but if you
didn't...
If there's anything for me to suggest changing it would be the white
bristles, unless they were meant to be gray like that. Those might even be a
candidate for being media-filled to give them some translucency.
Thanks for showing this unique rendering. BTW, I was just at the dentist for
6 month checkup a couple weeks ago and no teeth pulled. :}
Bob H
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
thanks so far ...,
it's interresting, that everybody I show this picture to, have this urgent
feeling of a slightly pulling pain on one of his tooth. ;-)
convincing, so I left the tooth in his original from.
Photon map as well as Radiosity solution where made in front of final render.
I think it's the combination of blurred reflection, huge photon map AND
radiosity which let the render time explode.
As I renember right (since it's a long time ago), the time for photons where
roughly 1h and for radiosity (2pass method) about 1 day.
The slightly greyish where planned to be bright white, but as I added some kind
of translucency (filter) to it they become grey.
Right now I don't think that I will alter something as I'm afraid to wait
another 100 days for the next pictures, while other ideas are allready pending
unless I find a way to drop the render time dramatically.
... dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Among other thigs, David El Tom saw fit to write:
> don't ask me, what I had in mind as I put this image together ....
Great! I saw the image without reading the subject, guess what I said... ;-)
--
light_source{9+9*x,1}camera{orthographic look_at(1-y)/4angle 30location
9/4-z*4}light_source{-9*z,1}union{box{.9-z.1+x clipped_by{plane{2+y-4*x
0}}}box{z-y-.1.1+z}box{-.1.1+x}box{.1z-.1}pigment{rgb<.8.2,1>}}//Jellby
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You can smooth out the photons by using a small image to render a photon
map, like two pass radiosity. Or are you already doing that?
-s
5TF!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David El Tom spake:
> don't ask me, what I had in mind as I put this image together ....
>
> but more then the image itself the render time did hurt (~2400h @P3;1GHz).
> I had to raise the photons gather values to something insane like 300,
> 2000 to smooth out the photon map (~140MB).
> Lower values gave just a bunch of sparkles ....
>
> If anybody got good ideas to avoid these render times on scenes with a lot
> reflective/refractive objects I would be happy.
>
> ... dave
At last! Somebody who also waits 100s of days for his traces to complete!
Very well done - the tooth doesn't do it for me, but the glasses and the
very nice caustics / photons does.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stm31415 wrote:
> You can smooth out the photons by using a small image to render a photon
> map, like two pass radiosity. Or are you already doing that?
>
> -s
> 5TF!
>
AFAIK it's a little bit more tricky with phothons, as in radiosity there will be
new samples when the solution is insufficient while photon precalculation is
independend from render dimensions. The size of an single photon sparkle is (so
I think) estimated by the radius keyword, which specify the space to look for
stored photons and average them weighted by distance. With gather you can fine
tune this step by specifying the min/max number of photons to take into account.
What I actually did is something you could call a "2-pass method"; first I build
the photon map by altering the spacing/count value until I think the solution is
sufficient eventhough often quit blotchy. (spacing strongly depends on the
dimension of your objects)
In a second pass I reload the map and adjust radius und gather until artefacts
are smoothed out but caustics remain well defined. To large values will lead
caustic details to vansih.
All in all there are normally multible passes before final render:
- 2 for radiosity solution with disabled micro-normals (blurred reflection)
and disabled photons @low-resolution
- 2 for photons @med-resolution and aditional close-ups to verify caustic
details.
- 1 combined radiosity, photon render @low-resolution to adjust light level
But I'm affraid that there are allways a lot more prerenders as I always forget
to switch on/off features so that I spoil the result.
... dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
