increase resolution: BAM! fall off the end of the universe

George Michaelson wrote:

I have never been able to render final images better than the default
view. If I try to set it to what seems a sensible next quantum leap up
it dies the death of a gigabyte memory model on a megabyte machine.

Is there some wierd cube law here? Is it actually not possible to do
better than 512x512 images? 1024x1024 don't work for me.

(the sizes are notional. Its been a while)

What OS and hardware had you used ? rpict renders and writes the image
line-by-line, so memory consumption doesn't scale quadratically with image size

(only linearly with image width). Images > 12000x12000 pixels worked well
on machines with <256MB main memory.

Also, some of the *wonderful* textures such as the finer woodgrains
have very odd effects on time to compute. Is there a FAQ like known
set of textures to avoid for fast render?

What usually slows down rendering are (beside ambient bounces) cal files:
Their computing time is approx twice that of compiled code (if I remember that
number right- Greg ?). So the more elaborate the functions, the longer it
takes.

Also Also wik: I did a kitchen with a mix of off-white and brushed steel
aluminimum surfaces. I found that the amount of colour picked up by
'gloss' surfaces was increadibly high, but if I didn't select off-whites
for detailed surfaces like tongue-and-groove wood, I got huge brightspots
which wiped out the image unless I wound back the lightbulbs to 5 watt
railway specials. I know that the chrome tap is reflecting part of a
perfectly rendered image of the lightbulb onto every shiny surface within
a 40 foot radius, but now I'm over 40 I can't see those little images
unless I stand real close. Does radiance have to render them? isn't
there some middle ground where it does high definition for some things
but not others?

Hm ?

-Peter

ยทยทยท

--
pab-opto, Freiburg, Germany, www.pab-opto.de