"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > > Pretty! I would love to see a larger version, perhaps with some dispersion :D
> >
> > I'll see what I can do ;) This version doesn't even use area light photons so I
> > could definitely crank it up a bit. Might tighten the view angle too.
>
> Here's a bigger version. I'd forgotten just how slow dispersion can get, so in
> the end I gave up waiting - this version uses area-light photons, but no
> dispersion :( There are still some slight fuzzy artifacts in the caustics, but
> it looks ok in general.

Looks good, even without dispersion ;) You going to try mixing them up in a
single container? :D

It would be great if POV-Ray got a render engine overhaul sometime. What I am
specifically thinking of here is if focal blur + dispersion were combined, to be
able to use a low dispersion_samples value that would be multiplied by the
camera's blur_samples value, to save time when rendering both. Same thing with
radiosity: multiply "count" by the camera's focal blur samples. After all, you
can already do this with area_lights, and radiosity to a degree (if all the
objects have a microscopic surface normal).

Sam

Post a reply to this message