Hi all,
I'm rendering out an animation with Radiance which basically is a dissolving
cube.
Thing is that it's a bit pointless to use similar settings for a
Cornell-like box almost closed box, than a cube which is almost completely
open. So in order to get a more intelligent rpict settings based on the open
surface area would be a good start. Now my question would be whether
possible rad (don't think so) takes this relation into account, or has
anyone another suggestion of doing so.
Right now, I'm making a couple of rough intermediary tests, try to come up
with a couple of reasonable settings, and interpolate through them, but it
would be cool to do this in a more formal manner, such that will be an
advantage for later on since it could be quite useful.
Cheers,
Jelle.
Hi Jelle,
What would be useful is a web link to some of your images, so we can see your model and the artifacts you are facing.
-Greg
···
From: "Jelle Feringa / EZCT Architecture & Design Research" <[email protected]>
Date: June 8, 2005 7:28:34 AM PDT
Hi all,
I’m rendering out an animation with Radiance which basically is a dissolving cube
Thing is that it’s a bit pointless to use similar settings for a Cornell-like box almost closed box, than a cube which is almost completely open. So in order to get a more intelligent rpict settings based on the open surface area would be a good start. Now my question would be whether possible rad (don’t think so) takes this relation into account, or has anyone another suggestion of doing so.
Right now, I’m making a couple of rough intermediary tests, try to come up with a couple of reasonable settings, and interpolate through them, but it would be cool to do this in a more formal manner, such that will be an advantage for later on since it could be quite useful.
Cheers,
Jelle.