 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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!
Wow. So how many £££ of electricity was used in that render? ;-)
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!
>
> Wow. So how many £££ of electricity was used in that render? ;-)
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Wow. So how many £££ of electricity was used in that render? ;-)
>
> 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:
> >> Wow. So how many £££ of electricity was used in that render? ;-)
> >
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2014 11:08, scott 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.
>
> I suppose you could have 20x 100W bulbs burning for 6 hours every day,
> that would add up to an average of 500W.
>
How did you came up with that 500W figure ?
Most ventirad of cpu are about 100 to 150W, and when rendering the
graphic card is nearly idle, so even with a disk and some memory chips,
the global power would be about 200W when rendering, even with a 80%
efficient PSU. (you do not have to keep the screen on during the render).
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How did you came up with that 500W figure ?
Well I needed to upgrade from a 500W to 750W+ PSU on my latest machine,
which I thought was mainly due to the graphics card, so 500W without
using the graphics card sounded about right. But then that probably is
worst case assuming powering all parts simultaneously.
> Most ventirad of cpu are about 100 to 150W, and when rendering the
> graphic card is nearly idle, so even with a disk and some memory chips,
> the global power would be about 200W when rendering, even with a 80%
> efficient PSU. (you do not have to keep the screen on during the render).
The motherboard presumably uses a fair whack as well, as on mine at
least it's got two quite large heatsinks. The other interesting I just
found out is that my GPU uses about 3x the power as my CPU, yet the CPU
heatsink and fan is bigger? How does that work?
Anyway, I figured out my average lighting use was about 25W (a handful
of LED and energy saving bulbs on for 4-6 hours/day), so even just
leaving my computer idle is using more than that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2014 12:58, scott wrote:
> The other interesting I just found out is that my GPU uses about 3x the
> power as my CPU, yet the CPU heatsink and fan is bigger? How does that
> work?
CPU usually throttle down once in the 80°C range. GPU are able to go to
105+°C (and might throttle down too once there).
The air flow on the cpu heatsink is rather loose, whereas the air flow
on the gpu heatsing is a tunnel.
Once you put these two facts together, you have on one side a
dissipation of 120W, and and the other side one of 250W.
(From air at 30°C, delta Temperature is 40 vs 65, more than 50%
effective alone)
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> CPU usually throttle down once in the 80°C range. GPU are able to go to
> 105+°C (and might throttle down too once there).
> The air flow on the cpu heatsink is rather loose, whereas the air flow
> on the gpu heatsing is a tunnel.
That then begs the question, why aren't CPUs using the same thermal
technology as GPUs?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2014 08:38 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Wow. So how many £££ of electricity was used in that render? ;-)
>>
>> 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.
My previous PC had a peak power usage of something like 200W when
running Crysis, and while not doing anything it sat at about 100W. You
don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 29.07.2014 13:12, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> On 29/07/2014 12:58, scott wrote:
>> The other interesting I just found out is that my GPU uses about 3x the
>> power as my CPU, yet the CPU heatsink and fan is bigger? How does that
>> work?
>
> CPU usually throttle down once in the 80°C range. GPU are able to go to
> 105+°C (and might throttle down too once there).
> The air flow on the cpu heatsink is rather loose, whereas the air flow
> on the gpu heatsing is a tunnel.
> Once you put these two facts together, you have on one side a
> dissipation of 120W, and and the other side one of 250W.
> (From air at 30°C, delta Temperature is 40 vs 65, more than 50%
> effective alone)
Plus, the CPU fan also needs to provide airflow for various mainboard
components, such as memory and voltage dividers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You
> don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...
You still have 100W heaters that give off a bit of light? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You
>> don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...
>
> You still have 100W heaters that give off a bit of light? ;-)
Yeah, pretty much.
In my mum's house [where most of this render took place] there's only
two lights in the building that aren't incandescent.
Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
to turn on...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.07.2014 09:47, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> You
>>> don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...
>>
>> You still have 100W heaters that give off a bit of light? ;-)
>
> Yeah, pretty much.
>
> In my mum's house [where most of this render took place] there's only
> two lights in the building that aren't incandescent.
>
> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
> to turn on...
Sounds like they're /all/ pretty much outdated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
> to turn on...
They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2014 10:13, scott wrote:
>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>> to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
When you have a single fixation system for the bulb, maybe.
But here (France !), I have two different system: screwing or bayonet mount.
So, it's not just "count, buy the number of bulbs and replace", each
mounting system must be checked and counted separatly.
Moreover, the impact of trashing still working apparatus is still a bit
disturbing.
I heard I'm not in the only country with such dual system. And bayonet
is the best system for customer, despite the extra-cost of the receiving
device (it's more than just a foil of metal pushed by a press). It's
easier to put and remove a bulb, and there is no tension on the external
body.
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When you have a single fixation system for the bulb, maybe.
> But here (France !), I have two different system: screwing or bayonet mount.
>
> So, it's not just "count, buy the number of bulbs and replace", each
> mounting system must be checked and counted separatly.
Also in the UK we have by no means a single system, I have at least
three types in my house. The traditional bayonet is IIRC in all the
bedrooms, there are screw-fit "candle" bulbs in the downstairs rooms,
and those spot-light bulbs with prongs on in the kitchen. I kept all the
bayonets as fluorescents as they hardly get used (max 1 hour per day),
but converted the spots and candle bulbs to LED as they see much more
use and I could get my money back in under a year. It wasn't that tricky
to count them and order the different types.
> Moreover, the impact of trashing still working apparatus is still a bit
> disturbing.
If you feel uncomfortable throwing them away, you could sell them
(although that might be illegal now?), give them away or fit them in
places that you very rarely use (eg attic or cupboard or something).
> I heard I'm not in the only country with such dual system. And bayonet
> is the best system for customer, despite the extra-cost of the receiving
> device (it's more than just a foil of metal pushed by a press). It's
> easier to put and remove a bulb, and there is no tension on the external
> body.
The other thing about threaded bulbs is that there is the chance they
come loose over time due to the heat cycling of the thread. With bayonet
it is impossible to come loose.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.07.2014 10:33, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> On 30/07/2014 10:13, scott wrote:
>>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>>> to turn on...
>>
>> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
>> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
>> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
>> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
>
> When you have a single fixation system for the bulb, maybe.
> But here (France !), I have two different system: screwing or bayonet mount.
Sounds like you're screwed then ;-) (SCNR)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
> > to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
No way.
I’ve yet to see a fluorescent bulb that was bright enough, halogen ones are too
actinic.
As far as fittings go. A flat I was in recently had bayonet fittings with three
prongs instead of two.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No way.
> I’ve yet to see a fluorescent bulb that was bright enough,
I think whatever brightness you want is available, within reason. The
problem is likely the cheap standard ones are 40W or 60W equivalents,
and they're probably lying a bit with those claims too. I'm pretty sure
I've seen some monster 150W and 200W equivalents.
And the problem with LEDs is that you can't get a 100W equivalent LED
(about 10W) in a package the size of a standard bulb - it just generates
too much heat and would cook itself. So you need to use more bulbs, we
have two 5x5W fittings in our living room so it was perfect for
switching to LED and reducing the power from 400W down to 50W, but it
only made financial sense because those lights are normally on for
several hours every day.
> halogen ones are too
> actinic.
I don't think halogens offer any efficiency improvements over
incandescents do they?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2014 1:13 AM, scott wrote:
>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>> to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
Yes well.. Here in the good old US, you get morons like the one who
tried to tell me that, "other lights hurt my eyes", which I supposed
meant that the dimwit was still trying to use the really old ones, which
flicker, and thought that the new ones did too. He also whined about
them not being "natural light", which is, you know, the whole point of
the bulbs with a blue coloration to them, to make them more natural, as
per outdoor light. So the clown was actually complaining that he didn't
like light that actually bloody **was** a more natural color, instead of
the ugly yellowish stuff standard incandescents produce. lol
Seriously though, I just so love living in a country where the answer to
everything from which light bulb they pick, to which over sized SUV they
drive, comes down to, "I don't like those more cost effective ones.",
and/or, "and besides, I might need the extra stuff it can do for some
reason, once in my entire life time!", and they get praise for this
stupid attitude by such a large number of other idiots.
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/30/2014 6:00 AM, scott wrote:
>> No way.
>> I’ve yet to see a fluorescent bulb that was bright enough,
>
> I think whatever brightness you want is available, within reason. The
> problem is likely the cheap standard ones are 40W or 60W equivalents,
> and they're probably lying a bit with those claims too. I'm pretty sure
> I've seen some monster 150W and 200W equivalents.
>
> And the problem with LEDs is that you can't get a 100W equivalent LED
> (about 10W) in a package the size of a standard bulb - it just generates
> too much heat and would cook itself. So you need to use more bulbs, we
> have two 5x5W fittings in our living room so it was perfect for
> switching to LED and reducing the power from 400W down to 50W, but it
> only made financial sense because those lights are normally on for
> several hours every day.
>
Well, you could.. But you would have to a) add a heat sink, b) use
higher end LED which are way brighter than the ones usually found in
those things, and c) throw out the transformer setup on them, and go
with a straight DC power connection, with the right voltage range.
Since, short of wiring your house yourself to provide 5v and 12v lines,
instead of 220, or the local equivalent, none of these things are going
to happen any time soon...
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2014 20:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Seriously though, I just so love living in a country where the answer to
> everything from which light bulb they pick, to which over sized SUV they
> drive, comes down to, "I don't like those more cost effective ones.",
> and/or, "and besides, I might need the extra stuff it can do for some
> reason, once in my entire life time!", and they get praise for this
> stupid attitude by such a large number of other idiots.
>
It's shared with other countries... 4x4 with bullbar (I mean, the heavy
mega super model)... in Paris, France.
Muddy roads in town, right!
Filled with angry charging cows... no doute.
btw, in France, getting off road to wild course with a vehicle is
forbidden (excepted on your own soil, but some forest are owned by
state-like-organisation so these ones are forbidden, and when was the
last time you saw a forest in Paris ?), so it's not like you are going
to need that mega-jumbo-wheel-drive to cross a field or a beach.
And for the unexpected snow condition (once every three years ? or
less), do not worry, the roads are to be blocked anyway by the other
cars (and trucks!), so you won't move even with that super-4x4.
--
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/07/2014 09:13 AM, scott wrote:
>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>> to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
I have yet to see a fluorescent bulb that works instantly. Oh, they all
strike instantly, but it takes about quarter of an hour for them to
"warm up" to the point where they produce any appreciable quantity of
light. And even then, they always seem a bit dark. As inefficient as
incandescent lights are, at least they WORK. There are many people who
hate the mini flourescents with a fire passion.
LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
directional, and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
your whole ceiling with them.
As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
casting a shadow over the work surface. A normal light, suspended just
below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
suffer this problem nearly as much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.07.2014 15:00, schrieb scott:
>> halogen ones are too
>> actinic.
>
> I don't think halogens offer any efficiency improvements over
> incandescents do they?
They do: Their filaments are hotter than those of classic incandescent
bulbs, causing their emissive spectrum to be more blueish, so they emit
less infrared light and more visible light. Some are also coated with a
material that reflects infrared light.
The gain is rather low however, something like a factor of 1.2 over
classic incandescent bulbs (*). Just about high enough to still allow
them to be sold though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.07.2014 20:03, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 7/30/2014 1:13 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>>> to turn on...
>>
>> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
>> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
>> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
>> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
>
> Yes well.. Here in the good old US, you get morons like the one who
> tried to tell me that, "other lights hurt my eyes", which I supposed
> meant that the dimwit was still trying to use the really old ones, which
> flicker, and thought that the new ones did too. He also whined about
> them not being "natural light", which is, you know, the whole point of
> the bulbs with a blue coloration to them, to make them more natural, as
> per outdoor light. So the clown was actually complaining that he didn't
> like light that actually bloody **was** a more natural color, instead of
> the ugly yellowish stuff standard incandescents produce. lol
For private homes it's probably healthier -- in terms of day/night
rhythm and anything related to that -- to use the more yellowish stuff.
On the other hand, for work places where good old daylight isn't
sufficiently available for one reason or another, bright blueish
illumination is kind of a must. But they've mostly been using
fluorescent lamps for ages anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> flicker, and thought that the new ones did too. He also whined about
> them not being "natural light", which is, you know, the whole point of
> the bulbs with a blue coloration to them, to make them more natural, as
> per outdoor light.
Saying that, we ordered "daylight" colour LED bulbs, and seriously
several times I've come downstairs in the evening and thought "ooh the
sun's still out", only it was just the lights on. When you are used to
that, the other bulbs looks horribly yellow and dirty/old fashioned. I
guess with almost everything, it's just what you're used to, and people
generally resist change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, you could.. But you would have to a) add a heat sink,
There are light fittings specially designed for LEDs now, where the
light fitting itself is the heat-sink. This seems like a good idea.
> b) use
> higher end LED which are way brighter than the ones usually found in
> those things,
Higher brightness = more heat. You can get ones that are marginally more
efficient, but you're still generating roughly the same amount of heat,
and the need to keep the LED junction below 120°C or whatever it is.
> and c) throw out the transformer setup on them, and go
> with a straight DC power connection, with the right voltage range.
Actually that is quite common here, if you've got multiple low-voltage
lights then you have one transformer "brick" (that attaches above the
ceiling somewhere) with DC running to each bulb. It's especially common
in bathrooms as it means you can run standard lights (rather than
expensive IP rated ones) much closer to a shower/bath than the
regulations would allow with mains power.
> Since, short of wiring your house yourself to provide 5v and 12v lines,
I don't think it will work very well trying to wire an entire house with
5V (or even 12V lines). The total current will be large, which means
thicker cables required, and over longer runs you'll get significant
voltage drop due to the cable resistance. Dropping a few volts when you
switch on a 13A kettle at 220V is no issue, but dropping from 5V to 2V
when you switch on a room full of LEDs is obviously an issue. There's
room for some innovation here I think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-07-30 18:00, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 30/07/2014 09:13 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>>> to turn on...
>>
>> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
>> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
>> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
>> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
>
> I have yet to see a fluorescent bulb that works instantly. Oh, they all
> strike instantly, but it takes about quarter of an hour for them to
> "warm up" to the point where they produce any appreciable quantity of
> light.
For sufficiently small values of "an hour". Unless it's -5C in your
living room, CFLs should warm up within a minute or so.
> And even then, they always seem a bit dark.
YMMV. I have 2 100W-equivalent in my basement, and I can barely look at
them without seeing spots after I turn my eyes.
> LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
> directional, and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
> your whole ceiling with them.
I don't get this. Here, we have warnings that LEDs are too bright and
can actually injure your eyes if you look directly at them.
>
> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
> casting a shadow over the work surface.
Just turn on radiosity, that will solve the problem.
;)
> A normal light, suspended just
> below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
> suffer this problem nearly as much.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I have yet to see a fluorescent bulb that works instantly. Oh, they all
> strike instantly, but it takes about quarter of an hour for them to
> "warm up" to the point where they produce any appreciable quantity of
> light. And even then, they always seem a bit dark.
You do realise that CCFLs come with different power ratings and
different light outputs, exactly like incandescents? If "they always
seem a bit dark" then maybe you are always buying ones with too low
power for the room?
> LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
> directional,
Most "candle" type LED bulbs will actually consist of multiple LEDs
pointing in all different directions with scattering/diffusing lenses.
If you buy LED spotlights/downlighters then yes you will get a
directional light pattern, that is the whole point (same if you buy a
halogen downlighter).
> and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
> your whole ceiling with them.
Realistically you're going to get equivalent of maybe 40-60W
incandescent from a single "normal" LED bulb. If you are used to using a
single 100W bulb to light a room then you won't be able to replace it
with a single LED bulb, but if (like me) you had those light fittings
that take 3x or 5x 40W halogen/incandescents then you can easily make it
brighter than it was before with LEDs.
> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
> casting a shadow over the work surface. A normal light, suspended just
> below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
> suffer this problem nearly as much.
That's because they are downlighter spots, nothing to do with the fact
that they are LED. You'd have the same issue with halogen spots.
Kitchens often used to have full-sized fluorescent tubes, which actually
worked quite well, they just went out of fashion. A "normal" uplighter
works by throwing the light onto the ceiling and it reflecting back
down, LED uplighters will do exactly the same, but typically you don't
have them in kitchens.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.07.2014 15:16, schrieb Francois Labreque:
>> LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
>> directional, and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
>> your whole ceiling with them.
>
> I don't get this. Here, we have warnings that LEDs are too bright and
> can actually injure your eyes if you look directly at them.
That's probably because the light comes from a very small spot, so you
can easily focus all of the light energy on a very small region of your
retina.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.07.2014 15:44, schrieb scott:
>> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
>> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
>> casting a shadow over the work surface. A normal light, suspended just
>> below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
>> suffer this problem nearly as much.
>
> That's because they are downlighter spots, nothing to do with the fact
> that they are LED. You'd have the same issue with halogen spots.
> Kitchens often used to have full-sized fluorescent tubes, which actually
> worked quite well, they just went out of fashion.
I don't know about the UK, but in Germany such kitchen lights would
often not be fluorescent tubes at all, but so-called "Linienlampen" -
incandescent light bulbs in a tubular shape with a long filament and
special sockets.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienlampe#mediaviewer/Datei:Linestra_with_visible_filament.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't know about the UK, but in Germany such kitchen lights would
> often not be fluorescent tubes at all, but so-called "Linienlampen" -
> incandescent light bulbs in a tubular shape with a long filament and
> special sockets.
>
>
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienlampe#mediaviewer/Datei:Linestra_with_visible_filament.jpg
Ooh interesting, never seen or heard of that before. I don't think they
were very common, if available at all here. All the ones I remember
always had the starter ballast in the side, which presumably is not
needed for the Linienlampen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
>> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
>> casting a shadow over the work surface.
>
> Just turn on radiosity, that will solve the problem.
> ;)
Win.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
> And are you planning to make the animation public?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
Worth it, eh?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/08/2014 18:17, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>
> Worth it, eh?
Actually, yes.
Could you do it from another angle?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Worth it, eh?
>
> Actually, yes.
> Could you do it from another angle?
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/08/2014 10:15, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Worth it, eh?
>>
>> Actually, yes.
>> Could you do it from another angle?
>
> FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
OFFFFFFFFFFFF! :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 19:17:45 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>
> Worth it, eh?
Awesome!
Now change it to glass beads.
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/08/2014 01:04 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Awesome!
>
> Now change it to glass beads.
I did try it with mirror beads... doesn't actually look all that good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/07/2014 08:18, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Reminds me of this:
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28402709
It reminds me of something Invisible posted years ago.
Connected with The Amiga IIRC.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:11:12 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 17/08/2014 01:04 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Awesome!
>>
>> Now change it to glass beads.
>
> I did try it with mirror beads... doesn't actually look all that good.
I meant red tinted glass. Though that would change your render time to a
couple more years. Though you wouldn't need the radiosity, so you may yet
be able to render it in 2 weeks. :)
A fly-around camera would also be nice :)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Now change it to glass beads.
>>
>> I did try it with mirror beads... doesn't actually look all that good.
>
> I meant red tinted glass. Though that would change your render time to a
> couple more years. Though you wouldn't need the radiosity, so you may
> yet be able to render it in 2 weeks. :)
>
> A fly-around camera would also be nice :)
Heh. My PC is currently rendering the next animation in the sequence.
(Cyan beads in a Cornell box, following an epicycloid path.)
One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
uniformly bright, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>
> Worth it, eh?
Nice water surface effect! The balls moving like that made me remember
back to those computer demos in the early 90s, they always seemed to
have at least one section with 10 or 20 balls moving about in
interesting patterns. Of course back then the balls were usually just 2D
sprites and the screen resolution was 320x200 or something ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/08/2014 07:58, scott wrote:
> The balls moving like that made me remember back to those computer demos
> in the early 90s, they always seemed to have at least one section with
> 10 or 20 balls moving about in interesting patterns. Of course back then
> the balls were usually just 2D sprites and the screen resolution was
> 320x200 or something ;-)
That is the one. I am sure Andrew posted an animation of that years ago
as a homage.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
