 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In MegaPOV, when you use the load_file option in radiosity settings, it
still renders the radiosity preview step. This seems contrary to the
point of saving the radiosity file and later reloading it - that is, to
save render time. It's easy enough to 'fix', but was wondering if there
was any reason why the mosaic preview step is done in that situation?
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"MikeH" <Ama### [at] aol com> wrote...
> In MegaPOV, when you use the load_file option in radiosity settings, it
> still renders the radiosity preview step. This seems contrary to the
> point of saving the radiosity file and later reloading it - that is, to
> save render time. It's easy enough to 'fix', but was wondering if there
> was any reason why the mosaic preview step is done in that situation?
It does the radiosity step because it continues to calculate radiosity.
Radiosity calculation even continues to happen during the final render step
(unless you turn it off with the appropriate MegaPov feature). The
radiosity preview step will be faster if you've loaded data that you saved
already. We try to gather more to fill in details in case the camera has
moved, or to just improve the radiosity estimate. You can make the step
really quick by using a very large pretrace_start and pretrace_end.
-Nathan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is the radiosity data independent of the camera location?
If yes, does it mean that you can get the same effect as in the
"regular" radiosity used in scanline renderers, that is: Calculate radiosity
once, render same scene from different camera locations many times?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Is the radiosity data independent of the camera location?
>
> If yes, does it mean that you can get the same effect as in the
> "regular" radiosity used in scanline renderers, that is: Calculate radiosity
> once, render same scene from different camera locations many times?
>
AFAIK, no. It would only work only if the new image doesn't include areas of the
scene invisible in the original image.
First level radiosity samples are only taken at points hit by the camera (or
reflected/transmitted) rays, so for the rest of the scene radiosity information
would be isufficient. Of course there should usually be a fair amount of samples
generated during secondary bounces, which can be reused to speed up the process.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > Is the radiosity data independent of the camera location?
> >
> > If yes, does it mean that you can get the same effect as in the
> > "regular" radiosity used in scanline renderers, that is: Calculate radiosity
> > once, render same scene from different camera locations many times?
> >
>
> AFAIK, no. It would only work only if the new image doesn't include areas of the
> scene invisible in the original image.
> First level radiosity samples are only taken at points hit by the camera (or
> reflected/transmitted) rays, so for the rest of the scene radiosity information
> would be isufficient. Of course there should usually be a fair amount of samples
> generated during secondary bounces, which can be reused to speed up the process.
But wouldn't secondary and tertiary bounces return lower values
than a primary bounce value ? If so then what value would it
add for speeding up the process ?
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <39C### [at] peakeduee>, Margus Ramst
<mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
> AFAIK, no. It would only work only if the new image doesn't include
> areas of the scene invisible in the original image.
I think it will compute extra samples for areas that weren't sampled
before, so that isn't the problem. However, if the scene is dynamic, for
instance, if there is a ball rolling through it, things probably won't
work right. In other words, the only kind of animation you can do with
this method is one where only the camera moves.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
>
> But wouldn't secondary and tertiary bounces return lower values
> than a primary bounce value ? If so then what value would it
> add for speeding up the process ?
>
Frankly, I might have been wrong here. AFAICS they _could_ be reused if their
current recursion level is stored, but I don't know if it is.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> I think it will compute extra samples for areas that weren't sampled
> before, so that isn't the problem.
Yes, but you _will_ have to take extra samples if the viewpoint changes, unlike
in "real" radiosity where the entire scene is energy-balanced before rendering.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
: Yes, but you _will_ have to take extra samples if the viewpoint changes, unlike
: in "real" radiosity where the entire scene is energy-balanced before rendering.
On the other hand, calculating radiosity only where it's needed and not
everywhere saves rendering time and memory.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On the other hand, calculating radiosity only where it's needed and not
> everywhere saves rendering time and memory.
What if one were willing to invest the time and memory for calculating the
radiosity of the whole scene? Wouldn't that be cool? I mean, you process
once, and then you can do a flythrough throught any point of the scene as
many times as you want to, without having to reprocess. I would do it. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
