 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JWV wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How does one start the standard benchmark? When I render the file
> benchmark.pov, it shows the image while rendering, and I can set the
> resolution of the image. This should not be possible according to the
> manual.(1.10.7.1.5 Run Benchmark)
>
Assuming you have POVray 3.6. Start the application, then from the
Render menu select the "Run Benchmark" option.
> JWV
>
> BTW: was your reply meant as: "wow, 12 mins, thats slow", or "wow, 12 mins,
> thats fast"?
>
12mins seems awfully fast for a Centrino 1.3GHz. I have an AMD64 3000+
and it took me 25mins to render at the same size (+h60 +w80 +a0.3). That
said, you did ofcourse switch on anti-aliasing?
--
Maurice
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maurice wrote:
> JWV wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> How does one start the standard benchmark? When I render the file
>> benchmark.pov, it shows the image while rendering, and I can set the
>> resolution of the image. This should not be possible according to the
>> manual.(1.10.7.1.5 Run Benchmark)
>>
>
> Assuming you have POVray 3.6. Start the application, then from the
> Render menu select the "Run Benchmark" option.
>
>> JWV
>>
>> BTW: was your reply meant as: "wow, 12 mins, thats slow", or "wow, 12
>> mins,
>> thats fast"?
>>
>
> 12mins seems awfully fast for a Centrino 1.3GHz. I have an AMD64 3000+
> and it took me 25mins to render at the same size (+h60 +w80 +a0.3). That
> said, you did ofcourse switch on anti-aliasing?
>
With AA switched off it takes me 4min17sec. Which seems a better
comparison with your result, given the hardware differences.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
AA was switched off.
Now running the benchmark......
JWV
"Maurice" <cel### [at] nospam hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:41869a33$1@news.povray.org...
> Maurice wrote:
> > JWV wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> How does one start the standard benchmark? When I render the file
> >> benchmark.pov, it shows the image while rendering, and I can set the
> >> resolution of the image. This should not be possible according to the
> >> manual.(1.10.7.1.5 Run Benchmark)
> >>
> >
> > Assuming you have POVray 3.6. Start the application, then from the
> > Render menu select the "Run Benchmark" option.
> >
> >> JWV
> >>
> >> BTW: was your reply meant as: "wow, 12 mins, thats slow", or "wow, 12
> >> mins,
> >> thats fast"?
> >>
> >
> > 12mins seems awfully fast for a Centrino 1.3GHz. I have an AMD64 3000+
> > and it took me 25mins to render at the same size (+h60 +w80 +a0.3). That
> > said, you did ofcourse switch on anti-aliasing?
> >
> With AA switched off it takes me 4min17sec. Which seems a better
> comparison with your result, given the hardware differences.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "Interesting" as in "oh, that's interesting"?
>> Or "interesting" as in "what the hell?... WHY did you do this???!"
>
> Both. :-)
Oh, OK. :-)
>> BTW... what do you make of the actual picture? Did you get it to
>> complete rendering? (I have not done this yet - it takes too long.)
>
>
> I agree. The render takes very long. On my AMD64 3000+, I get about
> 3PPS. So, I didn't bother to render it bigger than 160x120 (1h20m). I'm
> not sure what the extra 2 planes are doing. I can see that the plane{+y,
> -0.1} adds some nice ground effect. But it is also the one responsible
> for the slow render. I can't figure out what the plane{+y, +40} is doing
> though. Leaving it out doesn't seem to change anything.
Correction. Removing the sky plane makes the render go *drastically*
faster - and I have no idea why. It seems to change the way the media
sampling is done... weird.
But yes - it's only there to make a reflection on the top of the sphere.
It doesn't make a huge difference.
BTW... I tried to render the thing at 800x600. It's still going now, 22
hours later. 74% done though...
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> BTW... I tried to render the thing at 800x600. It's still going now, 22
> hours later. 74% done though...
>
> Andrew.
Sorry bout the email, Andrew, hit the wrong button.
I quit after an hour and eight lines at 800 X 600, AA 0.1. Rendered 160 X
120 no AA in 27 minutes on a P-4 2ghz.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Andrew the Orchid <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:
>> From looking at the code, I'll guess it reads the strings
>> with a hex-coded file (sort of like uuencode, binhex, or
>> mime) in them. This is output as a "pseudo binary" file,
>> with each one or zero being written as asn ascii zero or
>> ascii one, separated by commas. This is turn is read
>> back in and read through what looks like a fixed huffman
>> tree decompressor[1] which yeilds a file containing the
>> actual povray scene file.
>
>Yups, that is indeed *exactly* what it does.
>
cool! :D
>(Would have used canonical Huffman rather than explicitly storing the
>codebook - but the code to recompute the codebook is larger than the
>codebook itself, so...)
>
>It's not uuencode or BASE-64 or anything... just plain vanila hexdecimal
>8-D Would probably take up less space if I changed it to BASE-64... (Uh,
>I mean, it would *definitely* take up less space... but not sure about
>the decode part!)
>
>> Now I'm going to render it and see. :)
>
>Heh. Hope you have a fast PC...
>
I yi yi! I had to give it up. I'm guessing the
media is what slows it down.
>Seriously... the hex -> binary decode is almost instant. The Huffman
>decompression takes ~30 seconds or so. And the image itself takes
>*forever*...
>
I used had to abort the render after an hour. Wayyyy
to slow.
<snippage>
>I actually tried to write a version that uses arithmatic coding. In
>fact, it works. Expect... Sometimes - just sometimes - the decoder
>utterly looses synchronisation with the encoder, and I can't figure out
>why. :'(
>
you wrote an arithmetic coder as a pov-ray script?
Ow. That musta hurt. I have one in c and that was
a PITA to get working.
--
to all the companies who wait until a large user base becomes
dependant on their freeware, then shafting said happy campers with
mandatory payment for continued usage. I spit on your grave.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sorry bout the email, Andrew, hit the wrong button.
Uh... you mean it *didn't* bounce? Interesting... [Take a peek at the
address!]
> I quit after an hour and eight lines at 800 X 600, AA 0.1. Rendered 160 X
> 120 no AA in 27 minutes on a P-4 2ghz.
Yeah, I finally rendered it myself. Was hardly worth the 32 hours it took...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>Now I'm going to render it and see. :)
>>
>>Heh. Hope you have a fast PC...
>
> I yi yi! I had to give it up. I'm guessing the
> media is what slows it down.
Indeed. It does seem a little excessively slow, even for media...
Oh well, it was only supposed to demonstrate my Huffman decoder. (I
think I should have picked a scene file that actually *needed*
compressing, really... But I was going for the whole mirror-sphere
thing. LOL.)
>>I actually tried to write a version that uses arithmatic coding. In
>>fact, it works. Expect... Sometimes - just sometimes - the decoder
>>utterly looses synchronisation with the encoder, and I can't figure out
>>why. :'(
>
> you wrote an arithmetic coder as a pov-ray script?
Uh, yes.
> Ow. That musta hurt. I have one in c and that was
> a PITA to get working.
In C, *everything* hurts!
No, my arithmatic decoder works lovely... except... it randomly goes
wrong sometimes, and I don't know why. I _think_ there's something wrong
with the underflow handling either in the decompressor, or the extermal
program I use for encoding...
Andrew.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew the Orchid" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4187e261$1@news.povray.org...
> > Sorry bout the email, Andrew, hit the wrong button.
>
> Uh... you mean it *didn't* bounce? Interesting... [Take a peek at the
> address!]
My email killfile is set up to accept only names in the address book.
Everything else goes bye-bye without even downloading the header.
>
> > I quit after an hour and eight lines at 800 X 600, AA 0.1. Rendered 160
X
> > 120 no AA in 27 minutes on a P-4 2ghz.
>
> Yeah, I finally rendered it myself. Was hardly worth the 32 hours it
took...
You have more patience than I.
Greybeard
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Andrew the Orchid nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004-11-01
15:28... :
>>> "Interesting" as in "oh, that's interesting"?
>>> Or "interesting" as in "what the hell?... WHY did you do this???!"
>>
>>
>> Both. :-)
>
>
> Oh, OK. :-)
>
>>> BTW... what do you make of the actual picture? Did you get it to
>>> complete rendering? (I have not done this yet - it takes too long.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. The render takes very long. On my AMD64 3000+, I get about
>> 3PPS. So, I didn't bother to render it bigger than 160x120 (1h20m).
>> I'm not sure what the extra 2 planes are doing. I can see that the
>> plane{+y, -0.1} adds some nice ground effect. But it is also the one
>> responsible for the slow render. I can't figure out what the
>> plane{+y, +40} is doing though. Leaving it out doesn't seem to change
>> anything.
>
>
> Correction. Removing the sky plane makes the render go *drastically*
> faster - and I have no idea why. It seems to change the way the media
> sampling is done... weird.
>
> But yes - it's only there to make a reflection on the top of the
> sphere. It doesn't make a huge difference.
>
> BTW... I tried to render the thing at 800x600. It's still going now,
> 22 hours later. 74% done though...
>
> Andrew.
It's media, invisible at ground level, is everywhere. It would be beter
to diference it with another plane a few units lower, just low enough to
contain the planar density. Rendered at 1024*768 in about 19 hours on a
TBird 1400 with 512Mb. Average PPS around 16.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
