 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My render is running at 34 pixels per minute at the moment, and I
think I've seen PPH once or twice, so I was wondering: does this
notation extend further? Pixels per day? Week? Year? ;)
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My render is running at 34 pixels per minute at the moment, and I
> think I've seen PPH once or twice, so I was wondering: does this
> notation extend further? Pixels per day? Week? Year? ;)
I don't get it. I have a fairly slow computer, and yet I've done renders
with sphere sweeps, scattering media, media and normal photons, etc, and
never had to deal with render times under 3 or 4 PPS; usually closer to 5.
I believe that, the majority of the time, if a render is going more slowly
than that, then the scene can be hand-tweaked to create an effect 99%
similar but faster to render. Admittedly, this often means splitting media
containers into up to 10 smaller containers (with different distances from
the camera), and splitting transparent objects into the parts that will
create visible photons and parts whose photons won't be noticeable, etc. It
can be a nuisance sometimes. But it's a few hours of work versus a few days
of rendering time.
34 PPM is really freakin' slow. =)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Slime wrote:
> I believe that, the majority of the time, if a render is going more slowly
> than that, then the scene can be hand-tweaked to create an effect 99%
> similar but faster to render. Admittedly, this often means splitting media
> containers into up to 10 smaller containers (with different distances from
> the camera), and splitting transparent objects into the parts that will
> create visible photons and parts whose photons won't be noticeable, etc. It
> can be a nuisance sometimes. But it's a few hours of work versus a few days
> of rendering time.
But! That's cheating! Actually what's really slowing this render down
is the fact that I'm not using no_image on my glass objects (dispersion
1.5, 20 samples...IOR 1.51714...reflection min 0.04 max 1.0)...I make
those invisible and total render time drops. But I also use a media
container which fills the scene (only 1 or 2 samples tho), and
radiosity, and focal blur with 100 samples, confidence .999 variance
.001, photon mapping...whether I could create the same effect faster is
not the point; that's for weenie post-processing dweebs who don't have
the cojones to do intense renders ;)
> 34 PPM is really freakin' slow. =)
Not really, I've had slower.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <slm### [at] slimeland com> wrote in message
news:3e68eee7$1@news.povray.org...
> > My render is running at 34 pixels per minute at the moment, and I
> > think I've seen PPH once or twice, so I was wondering: does this
> > notation extend further? Pixels per day? Week? Year? ;)
>
>
> never had to deal with render times under 3 or 4 PPS; usually closer
to 5.
Lucky you :) A few of my "masterpieces" reach the PPM level and I
usualy abandon the scene. No patience, me :/
Try this one. I got 140 PPH and dropping, on a Celeron 500:
In p.t.s-f
http://news.povray.org/povray.text.scene-files/26776/
From: Alf Peake
Subject: Try this blob
Date: 25 Aug 2002 15:47:47 EDT
In p.g
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/26760/
From: Alf Peake
Subject: Snail racing is more exciting
Date: 24 Aug 2002 19:07:19 EDT
Alf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alf Peake wrote:
> Try this one. I got 140 PPH and dropping, on a Celeron 500:
Ick. I might reach that yet; 14 PPM atm.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
