 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi. First post to this newsgroup. I'm constantly impressed with povray, so
I wanted to see what I could produce for the sponza radiosity challenge
found here:
http://hdri.cgtechniques.com/~sponza/
I've downloaded the megapov file contained on that site, and made some
changes to it:
1. Set all ambient values for materials to 0.0
2. Changed the camera posn to that of a maxwell render which I'm using as a
reference
3. Altered the posn of the sun light and its intensity
4. Multiplied the normal bump_size by a factor of 10 - which doesn't appear
to affect the render
5. Added an .ini file and IndoorLQ radiosity
6. I've also added "normal on" in rad_def.inc
However, my render still looks flat and imho lacks contrast. Here is my
result:
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1516/test4vv.png
Here is the maxwell render I'm trying to imitate:
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9802/sponzapalace1ac.jpg
I think the noise in the maxwell render adds alot to its realism. I've
tarred up the entire scene with all my changes in it, which can be found
here. I simply execute "megapov test.ini"
http://jsnake.googlepages.com/sponza_megapov.tar.gz
I have no doubt that povray can produce a render which looks very similar to
the maxwell render, I'm just not quite sure how to go about it :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
lakcaj <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I have no doubt that povray can produce a render which looks very similar to
> the maxwell render, I'm just not quite sure how to go about it :)
After playing with it a bit (with povray 3.6; it doesn't really need
megapov per se) I got something which perhaps resembles a bit more (but
not completely) the original:
http://warp.povusers.org/sponza.jpg
It took 11 hours 23 minutes to render in my computer, though (3.4GHz P4).
It's interesting to open your rendering and mine in a browser and switch
between the two to see the differences:
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1516/test4vv.png
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
lakcaj wrote:
> I have no doubt that povray can produce a render which looks very similar to
> the maxwell render, I'm just not quite sure how to go about it :)
After looking at the comparison to Warp's version, I'd recommend adding
a "normal on" statement to the radiosity block. I think this is whats
happening.
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> After looking at the comparison to Warp's version, I'd recommend adding
> a "normal on" statement to the radiosity block. I think this is whats
> happening.
What I did was to deepen the normals ten-fold, reverse them (for some
reason they are reversed and need a negative bump_size), changed the
normal accuracy (I don't know if it has a real effect or not), added a
background color (which the original scene didn't seem to have for some
reason), copied the radiosity settings from rad_def.inc and increased
the 'count' and added 'normal on' and changed the assumed_gamma to get
a higher contrast.
(Besides that, I reduced the disk space needed by the scene from 18 MB
to 9 MB. I did this simply by converting all the tgas to pngs and by
removing 2 megabytes of no-op content from sponzaM_o.inc.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What I did was to deepen the normals ten-fold, reverse them (for some
> reason they are reversed and need a negative bump_size), changed the
> normal accuracy (I don't know if it has a real effect or not), added a
> background color (which the original scene didn't seem to have for some
> reason), copied the radiosity settings from rad_def.inc and increased
> the 'count' and added 'normal on' and changed the assumed_gamma to get
> a higher contrast.
Wow. I would have never guessed. OOC, what happened with just simply a
normal on statement?
> (Besides that, I reduced the disk space needed by the scene from 18 MB
> to 9 MB. I did this simply by converting all the tgas to pngs and by
> removing 2 megabytes of no-op content from sponzaM_o.inc.)
Wow. Why use tga in this day and age?
--
~Mike
Things! Billions of them!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> After playing with it a bit (with povray 3.6; it doesn't really need
> megapov per se) I got something which perhaps resembles a bit more (but
> not completely) the original:
>
> http://warp.povusers.org/sponza.jpg
>
That looks quite reasonable for a straight away render of a converted
scene. What has to be said however is that competitions of the type
"supplying a scene designed with application X and having programs
compete how well they render this scene" is not a good estimate for
renderer abilities in general - it just benchmarks the conversion
programs and how close the abilities of the renderer match the
requirements of application X and the scene (in this case indirect
illumination of bump mapped meshes).
For an unbiased comparison the rendering problem would have to be
described in a more generic way - and in this case this would of course
be as much a modeling competition as a rendering one.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 14 Mar. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Wow. I would have never guessed. OOC, what happened with just simply a
> normal on statement?
If you look at his attempt, the normals are not very visible even under
direct lighting. 'normal on' in the radiosity block wouldn't affect that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp,
Wow - your image looks fantastic. Thanks alot for taking the time to get
such a great render. Again, the power of povray has really come through.
The more I learn about povray, the more confident I am that it can do just
about anything I want it to, provided it is given the proper settings.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What has to be said however is that competitions of the type "supplying a
> scene designed with application X and having programs compete how well they
> render this scene" is not a good estimate for renderer abilities in general -
> it just benchmarks the conversion programs and how close the abilities of
> the renderer match the requirements of application X and the scene (in this
> case indirect illumination of bump mapped meshes).
Almost all renderers understand same scene description. Polygons, textures,
bumpmaps and so on. Conversion between formats is simple task.
> For an unbiased comparison the rendering problem would have to be
> described in a more generic way - and in this case this would of course
> be as much a modeling competition as a rendering one.
Scene to render is good rendering problem, but it requires accurate light
setup and dynamic range description.
Matti
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
