Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Robert, as Alain and clipka said, you should try the last incarnation...
> works fine here: in fact, I was not able to reproduce the artifacts I
> got with the pool balls: surely I was doing something really weird with
> the texture maps.
>
> And it's easier to setup than media, more consistent and better looking,
> but unfortunately it's very slow, at least for scenes which consist
> mostly on translucent objects (as much as a x10 increase in rendering
> time for this shot). Oh, well...
>
> --
> Jaime


(and the radiosity fixes were implemented). Thanks for the tips and for setting
me straight guys, much appreciated.

After reading through all the docs and playing around a bit today I came up with
this simple scene to test things out with radiosity. The top version uses three
identical superellipsoids lit by an area light and two shadowless fill lights.
In the bottom version the only change is the addition of subsurface in the
finish block of each cube, using a different translucency color for each. Each
cube is one POV-unit, with mm_per_unit 5.



The only drawback is that the SSLT version took 60 times longer to render than
the non-SSLT version. 20% of this extra time is for the SSLT calculations, but

the SSLT.

A very useful optimization for subsurface rendering would be a parameter to
ignore area light calculations within the subsurface material (if desired). This
would speed up render times considerably, while still keeping the realistic soft
shadows. For instance, when I rendered a version of this scene /without/ the
area light the SSLT version only took 5 times longer than the non-SSLT version
/with/ area light.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.McGregorFineArt.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sslt_blocks.jpg' (162 KB)

Preview of image 'sslt_blocks.jpg'