 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thursday, I finished a POV-Ray render that's been running for almost
exactly 2 years. I think this must be some kind of record or something!
Was it worth it? Erm... not so much, no. I mean, it looks pretty, but
somehow not as awesome as I had hoped.
Of course, the render _would_ have taken about a week if it weren't for
the radiosity. It turns out that for animation, you need really high
settings, otherwise the lighting flickers far too much. And that's why
the last couple of frames rendered at 8 hours / frame.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.07.2014 15:23, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On Thursday, I finished a POV-Ray render that's been running for almost
> exactly 2 years. I think this must be some kind of record or something!
>
> Was it worth it? Erm... not so much, no. I mean, it looks pretty, but
> somehow not as awesome as I had hoped.
>
> Of course, the render _would_ have taken about a week if it weren't for
> the radiosity. It turns out that for animation, you need really high
> settings, otherwise the lighting flickers far too much. And that's why
> the last couple of frames rendered at 8 hours / frame.
Next time try UberPOV's stochastic GI computations ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/07/2014 06:41 PM, clipka wrote:
> Next time try UberPOV's stochastic GI computations ;-)
I had to admit, I was sitting here wishing there was an unbiased
renderer out there that supports SDL input. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:23:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On Thursday, I finished a POV-Ray render that's been running for almost
> exactly 2 years. I think this must be some kind of record or something!
I had one that I ran a few years back that ran for a few months, but I
don't think I came close to 2 years. What's more, it was one that had
been posted to p.b.i, and the render I did wasn't sufficiently better
than the one that was posted (I want to say it was one of Shay's, but I
don't think he ever posted source for his).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On Thursday, I finished a POV-Ray render that's been running for almost
> exactly 2 years. I think this must be some kind of record or something!
And are you planning to make the animation public?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> On Thursday, I finished a POV-Ray render that's been running for almost
>> exactly 2 years. I think this must be some kind of record or something!
>
Less than the electricity to illuminate the building, I would think...
> And are you planning to make the animation public?
Maybe. It's not all that interesting, actually. Really, it's only slow
due to all the radiosity. And all that does is make the images look less
artificial than they otherwise would have. When you look at an image,
you don't notice the flaws it doesn't have - you notice the flaws it
*does* have!
Basically, what I'm saying is... I suck at graphics. :-/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Reminds me of this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28402709
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Less than the electricity to illuminate the building, I would think...
Depends how big your building is :-) But I find it hard to believe you
would use *on average* 500W (or whatever your PC uses flat out) of lighting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> >
> > Less than the electricity to illuminate the building, I would think...
> Depends how big your building is :-) But I find it hard to believe you
> would use *on average* 500W (or whatever your PC uses flat out) of lighting.
I suppose it depends on the size of the building, but given that
100W incandescent light bulbs are (still) popular, even a small building
is probably using those a lot.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Less than the electricity to illuminate the building, I would think...
>
>> Depends how big your building is :-) But I find it hard to believe you
>> would use *on average* 500W (or whatever your PC uses flat out) of lighting.
>
> I suppose it depends on the size of the building, but given that
> 100W incandescent light bulbs are (still) popular, even a small building
> is probably using those a lot.
I suppose you could have 20x 100W bulbs burning for 6 hours every day,
that would add up to an average of 500W.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
