 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Even unfinished, it looks spectacular. The scaffolding really gives the image
*scale*. Great idea!
Ken W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> My advice:
>
> - Do radiosity calculations in a separate shot (using the save_file/load_file
> mechanism) WITHOUT the area light (i.e. just a point light) (and of course
> without focal blur)
>
STRONGLY AGREE
I learned this the hard way fairly recently, while working on a scene that was
under a bridge. It was almost entirely lit by indirect light, and, after many
tests, I quickly discovered that the difference in radiosity between a point
and area light is very slight. In some cases where it could be more, I have
used a very low density area light (like 6*6) and saved the radiosity data,
then loaded it with the full area light to save time.
Anyway, that is a nifty image. I like the idea of taking the RSOC and
reinterpreting it.
Reactor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoo com> schreef in bericht
news:web.493bf06fff430ec385de7b680@news.povray.org...
> After the dearth of images a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to contribute
> something, but I had no finished images. Unfortunately, I've been slow at
> everything lately (medical issues). But after a week and a half of
> putzing
> around, I decided that, finished or not, I was going to post what I have.
> Better than nothing.
>
It looks finished to me... ;-)
Excellent!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> ...
Tried to contact you by e-mail but didn't succeed, mail delivery failed at
yahoo.
can you please contact me via christoph(at)lipka-koeln.de?
Business talk. No need everyone reading it.
Thanks in advance,
Christoph
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW, only now I noticed in the reflection something resembling... smoke?
Is that smoke appearing in the reflection near the top of the
unfinished sphere?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it nemesis who wrote:
>BTW, only now I noticed in the reflection something resembling...
>smoke? Is that smoke appearing in the reflection near the top of the
>unfinished sphere?
I thought that the workers hadn't finished polishing that bit.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Williams <nos### [at] econymdemoncouk> wrote:
> Wasn't it nemesis who wrote:
> >BTW, only now I noticed in the reflection something resembling...
> >smoke? Is that smoke appearing in the reflection near the top of the
> >unfinished sphere?
>
> I thought that the workers hadn't finished polishing that bit.
Ah, that may be it! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fantastic!
--
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it.
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, frequently mis-attributed to Voltaire
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Total Time: 43 hours 51 minutes 29 seconds (157889 seconds)
> CPU time used: kernel 86.41 seconds, user 151368.00 seconds, total 151454.41
> seconds
> Render averaged 5.19 PPS over 786432 pixels
A render using two-pass radiosity. I also discovered that +a0.0 +am2 +r3 +j
yielded results as good as focal blur for the checkered plane, and almost as
good as focal blur for the micronormal on the sphere's substrate (the "smoky"
part). (I set jitter=off in my povray.ini some years ago after experiencing
dissatisifaction with the feature, so now if I forget to set j+, anti-aliased
checkered planes look horrible. I soon changed my mind about jitter, but for
some reason I've resisted setting it back.)
______________________________________________________________
Total Time: 8 hours 38 minutes 35 seconds (31115 seconds)
CPU time used: kernel 4.48 seconds, user 29950.97 seconds, total 29955.45
seconds
Render averaged 26.25 PPS over 786432 pixels
______________________________________________________________
Add 17 minutes for the first pass.
That's a lot better! Odd thing is that on my first try, I forgot to turn on the
micronormal, and that run took 25% less time than this one. I don't know why
there would be such a discrepancy. The histograms didn't show the micronormal
area taking an inordinate amount of time, and with +a0.0 there shouldn't be
that much difference anyway.
Thanks for all the advice, especially for the 2-pass radiosity. I'll be making
more use of that in the future. Thanks especially to Jaime Vives Piqueres for
his response in p.a-u (and for rad-save-load.pov).
Alas, no progress has been made on the sphere itself. You just can't find good
contractors nowadays...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'unfinished-a.jpg' (284 KB)
Preview of image 'unfinished-a.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> That's a lot better! Odd thing is that on my first try, I forgot to turn on the
> micronormal, and that run took 25% less time than this one. I don't know why
> there would be such a discrepancy. The histograms didn't show the micronormal
> area taking an inordinate amount of time, and with +a0.0 there shouldn't be
> that much difference anyway.
micronormals reflecting the ray to boldly go where no radiosity pretrace has
ever gone before??
> Alas, no progress has been made on the sphere itself. You just can't find good
> contractors nowadays...
I think this shot should be added to the Hall Of Fame... as a WIP of course :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
