HOME | DD
Sabine62 β DuomoDue
Published: 2015-01-16 14:24:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 624; Favourites: 32; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Re-Render of After a tip from I set the max. iterations to 15 instead of 60. Not only did the total render-time change from 9 to 3 hours, this is a much better render... I think. But because I never really am sure about anything I post, I'd like to hear from you if you agree or not
Related content
Comments: 59
Yes, the Pope would be proud to sport this upon his Holy head.
π: 0 β©: 1
Excellent work. Impressed with the transparency - something I've never tried.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you very much! 
π: 0 β©: 0
I almost missed this marvel. The transparency is great and everything looks better!!! Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Ohh how nice that you like it too
Thank you, Domingo!
π: 0 β©: 0
Up for debate I guess ... Dit is wel een zuiverdere render, vriendelijker voor het oog, de andere is indrukwekkend, maar heel druk. Maar ik vindt ze beiden wel super hoor! dIFS lonken al heel lang maar ze duuuuuren zo lang
π: 0 β©: 1
Ohh dank je wel, Johan!
Oh en de truuk met de rendertijd voor difs (kreeg ik van Jorge en ik las er ook wat van bij HalTenny): Max. iterations zo laag mogelijk, sommigen schijnen zelf maar 5 te nemen... Dan verlies je wel wat detail, dus het is even uitkienen tot how laag je kunt gaan. Deze is op 15 gerenderd, scheelde 6 uur...
π: 0 β©: 1
Altijd welgekomen
π: 0 β©: 1
Guess you have done a bit more than limiting the max # of iterations - or is the clearer transparency really just an effect of that one change?
In any case the balance between light and shadow is better here which improves the overall lightning, and clarity.
My opinion only, of courseΒ - Β Β
π: 0 β©: 2
The transparency really changes with each iteration, because the colours change It really works just like changing the DE Stop. And because I assigned different transparency values to almost all of the colours, the transparency changes with them.
Glad you agree, Gannjondal, and thank you very much!
π: 0 β©: 1
I guess for that topic a closer look would be nice. I believe there has been a tutorial (cannot find it right now), but I don't know anymore how detailed that may have been.
π: 0 β©: 1
I will investigate the whole thing a bit further
π: 0 β©: 0
Missed your answer to HanZeeman .Β Thus the question is answered. Interesting, and worth some try
π: 0 β©: 0
You did great dear friend , love the transparency
π: 0 β©: 1
Can you see I have looked really hard at your DIFs, dear?
Thank you, dear Patty! Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Never had a doubt in my mind , always knew you could do it , am so proud of ya my dear and you are always welcomed Β
π: 0 β©: 1
You're right, Sabine, it is great render! I can't wait to see it on bigger screen.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you very much, Jan! Glad you like it too!
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree. It's much better! Perhaps due to larger format, but the image got clearer details like this. It's brighter too.
A real mind-bender from the 'smoke and mirrors' workshop. Like it a lot!
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
This is very interesting, my friend. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Explore, my friend. Setting the max iter lower Should decimate render times... Let me know if they do in Manderlbulber too, please!
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok, will do! At the moment I'm trying to sort out your MBer bulby settings. There will be a note about it within an hour.
After that I'll do some experimenting with this max-iter bit. Off course you will be informed about any results.
π: 0 β©: 1
Will play with the params you sent tonight and especially have a look what I did wrong so I learn
π: 0 β©: 1
The test runs of MBer max-iter settings turned out like this:
Linear DE mode - detail level 4 - DE step factor 1 - smoothness 0,1
Resolution 400x500 px
1. max iter = 50 - rendered in 19m49s - errors (missed DE) 0,193%
2. max iter = 250 - rendered in 19m9s - errors (missed DE) 0,193%
Very little, if any, visible difference. So, that didn't save any time, rather the opposite..Β Β Hmmmmmm!
Will let you know if I get different results with other rendering modes. Be well!
π: 0 β©: 1
I have done the same here! Almost the same results :} On 20 max iter 2.0, on 2500 2.03... :}
π: 0 β©: 1
Aha.. Well, it was worth a try. Perhaps the other render modes work differently.. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, Complicated. It needs further study
π: 0 β©: 0
Vind deze mooier ,dan de eerste, de doorzichtigheid is groots!!
π: 0 β©: 1
Super, dank je wel Ziska! Leuk dat je deze ook beter vindt!
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh! Wow! This is even More Wonderful Sabine and the transparency is perfect A1 Awesome work here .
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh I'm so glad you like it! Thank you, Barbara, also for your opinion!
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh cool, thank you, Jim, also for your opinion!
Now I must experiment and see what it does with a few more iterations, Luca says... :} A day's work is never done
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes! Less iters is better in difs. But you should fine tune them to get more details in this particular case
Say... 20 iters should be enough to get more detail
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>