Thanks for the help @Stephen_Wasilewski and @Greg_Ward!
I have decided rather than saving a saved.opt
file, to simply create a new .rif
file and run it through rad
instead of using rpict
or rpiece
. I’ve chosen to do this because this allows me to take advantage of the -N
option to use multiple CPU cores. This also hopefully preserves all of the render options.
I’ve followed your guidance on calculating the view options. I’m not entirely sure that the relationship suggested by VH = (orig vh)/10
and VV = (orig vv)/5
is correct. I’ve instead calculated my partial render dimensions as a fraction of the original sensor size of my virtual camera, and used that to recalculate VH and VV, like so:
partial_width_ratio = partial_width / original_width
vh2 = 2*atan(sensor_width*(partial_width_ratio)/(2*focal_length)))
vv2 = 2*atan(sensor_width*(partial_width_ratio)*(partial_height/partial_width)/(2*focal_length)))
This seems to calculate it properly, I think. However, due to rounding errors it can mean that the resulting patch can be a pixel or two squashed, as shown in the below image. For instance, my original image’s VH and VV give an output (aspect ratio) resolution of 1920x1080. I specified a region of 458x259 pixels to partially render and calculated VH2 and VV2 as above. When it actually rendered, however, despite my RESOLUTION=458 259
option in my .rif
file, it created a 456x259 image, i.e., the width was 2 pixels less. When I rendered it I got this output:
rpiece: warning - resolution changed from 1374x777 to 1356x768
Another issue shown in the image is that obviously the partial render does not blend in completely seamlessly. Some can be explained due to the change in global illumination due to the added objects: for instance the orange glow on the wall caused by the new orange object.
However, this does not explain why the white wall and table does not blend in perfectly. Here is getinfo
of the original render:
scene_v3.hdr:
#?RADIANCE
rpiece -F scene_v3_rpsync.txt -PP pf1vSUQY -t 15 -vh 71.07535558394876 -vv 43.7791135398094 -vp 0.28506553173065186 -2.0509257316589355 0.4600725769996643 -vd 0.5700837969779968 0.8215847015380859 0.0017081499099731445 -vu -0.0009908974170684814 -0.001391477882862091 0.9999985098838806 -x 5760 -y 3240 -dp 4096 -ar 128 -ms 0.14 -ds .2 -dt .05 -dc .75 -dr 3 -ss 16 -st .01 -ab 3 -af scene.amb -aa .1 -ad 1536 -as 768 -av 10 10 10 -lr 12 -lw 1e-5 -av 0 0 0 -ds .01 -dj .8 -dt 0 -aE exclude.txt -ps 3 -pt .04 -o scene_v3.unf scene.oct
SOFTWARE= RADIANCE 4.2a lastmod Mon May 11 13:27:51 PDT 2015 by rgugliel on ubuntu
VIEW= -vtv -vp 0.285066 -2.05093 0.460073 -vd 0.570084 0.821585 0.00170815 -vu -0.000990897 -0.00139148 0.999999 -vh 71.0754 -vv 43.7791 -vo 0 -va 0 -vs 0 -vl 0
CAPDATE= 2018:12:07 22:02:14
GMT= 2018:12:07 11:02:14
FORMAT=32-bit_rle_rgbe
pfilt -m .25 -x 1920 -y 1080 -p 1.000
EXPOSURE=3.587490e-01
And here is the getinfo
of the tile. As you can see the pfilt
options are the same. So I’m not sure why there is a difference.
scene_tile2.hdr:
#?RADIANCE
rpiece -F scene_tile2_rpsync.txt -PP pfol0oHx -t 15 -vp 0.28506553173065186 -2.0509257316589355 0.4600725769996643 -vd 0.5700837969779968 0.8215847015380859 0.0017081499099731445 -vu -0.0009908974170684814 -0.001391477882862091 0.9999985098838806 -vh 19.34194228806581 -vv 11.00898690157091 -vs -0.31609599445167297 -vl -0.7955405384852003 -x 1374 -y 777 -dp 4096 -ar 128 -ms 0.14 -ds .2 -dt .05 -dc .75 -dr 3 -ss 16 -st .01 -ab 3 -af scene.amb -aa .1 -ad 1536 -as 768 -av 10 10 10 -lr 12 -lw 1e-5 -av 0 0 0 -ds .01 -dj .8 -dt 0 -aE exclude.txt -ps 3 -pt .04 -o scene_tile2.unf scene.oct
SOFTWARE= RADIANCE 4.2a lastmod Mon May 11 13:27:51 PDT 2015 by rgugliel on ubuntu
VIEW= -vtv -vp 0.285066 -2.05093 0.460073 -vd 0.570084 0.821585 0.00170815 -vu -0.000990897 -0.00139148 0.999999 -vh 19.3419 -vv 11.009 -vo 0 -va 0 -vs -0.316096 -vl -0.795541
CAPDATE= 2018:12:23 00:08:05
GMT= 2018:12:22 13:08:05
FORMAT=32-bit_rle_rgbe
pfilt -m .25 -x 458 -y 259 -p 1.000
EXPOSURE=3.368380e-01
Finally you can notice a few new dots of dappled sunlight. Perhaps this is due to a bit of random sampling of the ray tracing, where some light have got through the leaves, I’m not sure.
Any help in explaining these anomalies would be much appreciated!