 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm getting black lines & patches no matter what. :/
Code:
// +FN16 +BS5 +RP4 +RVP +am3 +a0.1 +r512 +ac0.999995 +w800 +h800
// Rendertime 12min 55sek
// Win 8.1Pro x64 on AMD PhenomII with 8 GB ram
#version unofficial patch 3.7;
#patch "upov-reflection-roughness" 0.9;
global_settings{ assumed_gamma 2.2 max_trace_level 36 }
#default{ finish{ ambient 0.1 diffuse 0.7 }}
camera {
perspective angle 75 location <0.0 , 1.0 ,-3.0> right
x*image_width/image_height look_at <0.0 , 1.0 , 0.0>
aperture 0.025 blur_samples 512,2048 focal_point <0,1.0,0> confidence 0.999
variance 0.001
}
light_source{ < 3000,3000,-3000> color rgb 1 }
sky_sphere { pigment { gradient y
color_map { [0.00 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>][0.35 rgb <0.1,0.3,0.8>][0.65 rgb
<0.1,0.3,0.8>][1.00 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]}
scale 2 }
}
plane{ <0,1,0>, 0
texture{ pigment{ checker color rgb<1,1,1>*1.2 color
rgb<0.25,0.15,0.1>*0.05 }
normal { bumps 0.75 scale 0.1 turbulence 0.5 omega 0.4 lambda
2.5 octaves 6 }
finish { specular 0.1 roughness 0.1 }
}
}
sphere { <0,0,0>, 1.00
texture {
pigment{ color rgb <1,0,0> }
finish { specular 1.0 roughness 0.0125 brilliance 2
reflection { 0.5 metallic 0.5 roughness 0.0125 } }
}
scale<1,1,1> rotate<0,0,0> translate<0,1.35,0>
} // end of sphere -----------------------------------
I would have liked to paste or attach an image here but...
I've tried to vary the +r, the +ac & the number of samples that the
focal blur uses, also the conf & vari, but no success.
The black patches only exist at the horizon while the lines/dots are
on the sphere.
Sincerely Rendering!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/22/2014 05:05 AM, fomhorian wrote:
> I'm getting black lines & patches no matter what. :/
>
> Code:
>
> // +FN16 +BS5 +RP4 +RVP +am3 +a0.1 +r512 +ac0.999995 +w800 +h800
^---- Yikes!!!!
> // Rendertime 12min 55sek
> // Win 8.1Pro x64 on AMD PhenomII with 8 GB ram
> #version unofficial patch 3.7;
> #patch "upov-reflection-roughness" 0.9;
>
> global_settings{ assumed_gamma 2.2 max_trace_level 36 }
>
> #default{ finish{ ambient 0.1 diffuse 0.7 }}
>
> camera {
> perspective angle 75 location <0.0 , 1.0 ,-3.0> right
> x*image_width/image_height look_at <0.0 , 1.0 , 0.0>
> aperture 0.025 blur_samples 512,2048 focal_point <0,1.0,0> confidence 0.999
> variance 0.001
> }
>
> light_source{ < 3000,3000,-3000> color rgb 1 }
>
> sky_sphere { pigment { gradient y
> color_map { [0.00 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>][0.35 rgb <0.1,0.3,0.8>][0.65 rgb
> <0.1,0.3,0.8>][1.00 rgb <0.6,0.7,1.0>]}
> scale 2 }
> }
>
> plane{ <0,1,0>, 0
> texture{ pigment{ checker color rgb<1,1,1>*1.2 color
> rgb<0.25,0.15,0.1>*0.05 }
> normal { bumps 0.75 scale 0.1 turbulence 0.5 omega 0.4 lambda
> 2.5 octaves 6 }
> finish { specular 0.1 roughness 0.1 }
> }
> }
>
> sphere { <0,0,0>, 1.00
> texture {
> pigment{ color rgb <1,0,0> }
> finish { specular 1.0 roughness 0.0125 brilliance 2
> reflection { 0.5 metallic 0.5 roughness 0.0125 } }
> }
>
> scale<1,1,1> rotate<0,0,0> translate<0,1.35,0>
> } // end of sphere -----------------------------------
>
> I would have liked to paste or attach an image here but...
> I've tried to vary the +r, the +ac & the number of samples that the
> focal blur uses, also the conf & vari, but no success.
> The black patches only exist at the horizon while the lines/dots are
> on the sphere.
I think the expectation that you can overcome the moire' effect of the
checked plane at the horizon is unrealistic ... I mean +r512 holy moley!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.01.2014 11:05, schrieb fomhorian:
> I'm getting black lines & patches no matter what. :/
>
> Code:
>
> // +FN16 +BS5 +RP4 +RVP +am3 +a0.1 +r512 +ac0.999995 +w800 +h800
^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
The settings interact as follows:
The "+a0.1" setting specifies that you accept an error(*) of up to 10%
per pixel. This is quite a lax setting, for high-quality renders I'd
recommend "+a.01".
(*The error margin is relative to 100% white for pixels somewhere
between black and white; for brighter pixels, the error margin is
relative to the resulting pixel colour itself.)
The "+ac0.999995" setting specifies that you want a 99.9995% confidence
that any given pixel is indeed within the accepted marging of error; an
equivalent statement (at least in layman's terms) is that you accept
0.0005% of all pixels to be outside the accepted margin of error. This
is an extremely strict setting, for high-quality renders I'd recommend
something about "+ac0.99".
The "+r512" option specifies how many samples you accept for any given
pixel to be taken in the worst case; the value is not taken literally,
but rather according to the formula:
max_samples = 4^r
(The rationale behind this parameterization is that it is similar in
order of magnitude as the effective maximum number of samples in
anti-aliasing mode 2, while at the same time being easy to express as a
formula.)
I guess I don't need to tell you that 4^512 (= ca. 10^308) is much more
than you'll ever need, and in a worst-case scenario could stall your
render for just a bit short of eternity. For practical purposes, "+r9"
should be enough for any render.
To sum it up, for practical purposes the following settings should be ok
for high-quality renders:
+am3 +a0.01 +ac0.99 +r9
If you experience excessive noise, try lowering the "+a0.01" setting.
If you experience stray dot artifacts, try increasing the "+ac0.99" setting.
Further increasing the "+r9" setting should typically not be necessary.
That said, it seems that you indeed have spotted a problem in UberPOV,
but it's not related to blurred reflections. Somehow, the perturbed
normals of the plane appear to lead to nonsense results very close to
the horizon, leading to invalid colour values for individual rays, which
sort of "dominate" the results for any other rays shot for the same
pixel and (in the Windows version) manifest as pitch black pixels. (In
the Linux version, they may lead to bright white pixels instead.)
I'll have to investigate whether these nonsense results are indicative
of an actual bug that needs to be fixed, or rather rare but inevitable
consequences of rounding errors that can safely be worked around.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 22.01.2014 11:05, schrieb fomhorian:
> > I'm getting black lines & patches no matter what. :/
> >
> > Code:
> >
> > // +FN16 +BS5 +RP4 +RVP +am3 +a0.1 +r512 +ac0.999995 +w800 +h800
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The settings interact as follows:
>
> The "+a0.1" setting specifies that you accept an error(*) of up to 10%
> per pixel. This is quite a lax setting, for high-quality renders I'd
> recommend "+a.01".
>
> (*The error margin is relative to 100% white for pixels somewhere
> between black and white; for brighter pixels, the error margin is
> relative to the resulting pixel colour itself.)
>
> The "+ac0.999995" setting specifies that you want a 99.9995% confidence
> that any given pixel is indeed within the accepted marging of error; an
> equivalent statement (at least in layman's terms) is that you accept
> 0.0005% of all pixels to be outside the accepted margin of error. This
> is an extremely strict setting, for high-quality renders I'd recommend
> something about "+ac0.99".
>
> The "+r512" option specifies how many samples you accept for any given
> pixel to be taken in the worst case; the value is not taken literally,
> but rather according to the formula:
>
> max_samples = 4^r
>
> (The rationale behind this parameterization is that it is similar in
> order of magnitude as the effective maximum number of samples in
> anti-aliasing mode 2, while at the same time being easy to express as a
> formula.)
>
> I guess I don't need to tell you that 4^512 (= ca. 10^308) is much more
> than you'll ever need, and in a worst-case scenario could stall your
> render for just a bit short of eternity. For practical purposes, "+r9"
> should be enough for any render.
>
>
> To sum it up, for practical purposes the following settings should be ok
> for high-quality renders:
>
> +am3 +a0.01 +ac0.99 +r9
>
>
> If you experience excessive noise, try lowering the "+a0.01" setting.
>
> If you experience stray dot artifacts, try increasing the "+ac0.99" setting.
>
> Further increasing the "+r9" setting should typically not be necessary.
>
>
> That said, it seems that you indeed have spotted a problem in UberPOV,
> but it's not related to blurred reflections. Somehow, the perturbed
> normals of the plane appear to lead to nonsense results very close to
> the horizon, leading to invalid colour values for individual rays, which
> sort of "dominate" the results for any other rays shot for the same
> pixel and (in the Windows version) manifest as pitch black pixels. (In
> the Linux version, they may lead to bright white pixels instead.)
>
> I'll have to investigate whether these nonsense results are indicative
> of an actual bug that needs to be fixed, or rather rare but inevitable
> consequences of rounding errors that can safely be worked around.
Well; I usually render with +a0.005, & I did start with +ac0.95...
I was surprised that POVRay could take +r512 actually & it still rendered way
quicker than my standard aa-settings & +AM2. Might it be possible for UberPOV to
have an adaptive range for the +r? Something like +ra9,512...
Cheers from Sweden!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.01.2014 13:04, schrieb fomhorian:
> Might it be possible for UberPOV to
> have an adaptive range for the +r? Something like +ra9,512...
That wouldn't make any sense; the oversampling algorithm is adaptive
already, with the +r parameter just specifying the absolute maximum
number of rays per pixel.
The minimum number of rays per pixel is automatically computed from the
+a and +ac settings.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
