Allen Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Testing a simple scene and am getting light leaks near the ceiling. Using Monte Carlo 1 sample, 6x18, 1-spotlight. 57min. rendering time at 800x600 low antialiasing. Checked geometry - looks clean. What causes the light leaks? Thanks for any help - and any words to help fake the affect would also be helpful. http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=redroom_1.jpg Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Hi Allen, Have you tried all the usual tricks: motion blur on, turn up the rays per evaluation to say 11x33, Shading Noise Reduction on? Strange to get artifacts with monte carlo though. On the subject of other gi methods, I find 'fakeosity' to be a real pain to set up for interiors. Interpolated Radiosity with maximum rays per evaluation and motion blur works for me. Hope this helps. Regards, Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 Thanks for the reply, Iain. Found the problem. Moved my light closer to the window - as the walls are single sided light was coming in from the side - duh. Turned on motion blur and the check box that reduces artifacts in the GI panel. (forgot the name) I'll post the result when it finishes rendering. Thanks for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 Here's the corrected version. Works much better when I use common sense and lights that don't go through walls! http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=redroom2.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 That would explain it! Thought it was strange in monte carlo set up to get artifacts. Here's a 15 minute render with interpolated radiosity: http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=georgiandininglo.jpg Like your image btw. Cheers, Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 Thanks. Here's an interpolated image - Much faster render! Not as clean as the Monte Carlo - but with the time difference, I can live with this quality. http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=redroom3.jpg Nice image you sent. What resolution and settings for 15 min time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davis Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 this is neat... kinda stuff to add to your portfolio.. i hope you had fun doing it davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Not as clean as the Monte Carlo - but with the time difference, I can live with this quality.I can't. Go with your first try, it's much better. Fix the minor 'light leak' in Photoshop and add a dirt level in the clay pot and then pat yourself on the back. The later version is vastly inferior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 My resolution was 800x600 at 0.4 tolerance, 14x42 rays, min evaluation 40mm. Your image looks much better with the plant's shadow included. This stuff is much better than working! Cheers, Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 Thanks, Davis and Ernest. It was a lot of fun - got some more experience with Onyx, and some with light "play" in a scene and differences in time for renders. Ernest, is 3 hours not absurd for an image this size or is this time pretty standard? The "redroom2" has the "light leak" fixed - had my room affected by the sun going through one-sided polys. BTW, the dirt is in there - just not high enough in the pot - I'll fix that. Thanks so much for your replies - much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Ernest, is 3 hours not absurd for an image this size or is this time pretty standard? Oh, it absurd, all right, but the picture is beautiful, and its done. How long would it take to paint that picture? 3 hours for a soft, wonderful picture? It doesn't look like a good time for animation frames, but for a still its acceptable. My point is if you're going to invest 3 hours into a render, it should come out looking like that first one. You know the tradeoffs, the benefits, so you're set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hi Ernest, I agree that the first image is superior in quality. I don't know if I'd say vastly but then that's really down to Allen to decide. The image is only 'test render' size, however, and to really apply your painting comparison, it would have to be print resolution which could take days. This is okay for special one-off renders but for everything else it's a bit prohibitive. Sometimes quality is everything though(portfolio!) and everyone would like a couple of images like that one under their belt. Regards, Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 Thanks again, guys - especially for the kind words. Means a lot. Think, I'll make a few small tweaks (dirt in the pot) and re-render over the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingemar Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 There's another thread going on about GI settings at http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000001;p=1. Some LW exampels at page 8 and later. Not very flattering for LW concerning rendertimes I'm afraid... Hope LW8 will give us some improvements in this area. ingemar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 19, 2004 Author Share Posted January 19, 2004 Thanks for the information, Ingemar. You're right. LW's times for GI calcs are ridiculous. What's not very promising is that I've heard barely anything about improved GI under '8'. Hope it's addressed but I'm not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingemar Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 I agree. Here's what Newtek says in the feature list (if you haven't seen it already): "Rendering Enhancements: -LWSN log file for debugging renders -Expanded command list in LWSN for third party render controllers -Render speed enhancements -Direct Show Flexible Point: allows users to view Flexible Point images in Internet Explorer. -OpenEXR file format support" Maybe "Render speed enhancements" includes GI performance, maybe not. ingemar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now