tlehnhaeuser Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 The image shows some wierd shadows and I cannot seem to get them more hi-res. the scene is set with no lights on, no ambient lighting, just a global illumination set to colored background, medium. When I set the shadow resolution higher, it doesn't make them better. Any ideas what setting is required to perfect these shadows? Any feedback is welcomed. thanks Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 So if you set the Shadow Quality to above .95 and the Colored Illumination Quality to High or Extreme, it does not get better? If not send the file so we can take a look. Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted September 11, 2008 Author Share Posted September 11, 2008 Cary, I tried your settings and it gets a little better, but theres something else going on. Sorry I cant send file due to proprietary reasons. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 Hmm...I'll ask the developer to look into it. Maybe it is best to use Full GI. Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EricFoy Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 ...Couldn't resist a good puzzle. So I ran some tests, and I *think* I may have found the answer. Here's the basic stock settings. Oversampling: Medium; GI: Medium Then I thought, "Maybe it's the model." So I cranked up the facets on the o-rings and checked "triangulate facets." Not much improvement... So then I thought I'd crank up the shadow parameters. Here's one at Shadow Quality: 0.9; Precision: 30... Wow. It got way worse! So I thought, "If more is less, then perhaps less is more..." So here's my successful rendering at Shadow Quality: 0.5; Precision: 2... Moral: Don't crank up the Precision too high, or you'll get distortion. Like, too much gain, man. You gotta keep the VU's out of the red, if you know what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cborer Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) Eric Funny! Nice Test line. Thanks! Carlo Edited September 12, 2008 by cborer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Hi Eric, Just to make sure everyone understands....A Lower Precision will give better results not a higher value: Precision. The number of pixels per cache sample. A value of 10 will give approximately one cache sample for every 10 pixels. Lower values give more accurate results (as the cache samples are located closer together) at the expense of performance. That is why it got worse in the one case. You probably could have left the Shadow Quality a 0.9 and set the precision to 2 and got a good result as well. Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 (edited) Thanks Eric! and all I will give it a try immediatley. BTW, Eric ever think you'd be working on a contraceptive! Edited September 12, 2008 by tlehnhaeuser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EricFoy Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Lower values give more accurate results Aha... So less really is more... So much for my distortion theory. But what about the Shadow Quality? Does it run backwards also? Please expound. Thanks. BTW, Eric ever think you'd be working on a contraceptive! Wow! My imagination runs wild! I'm not even gonna ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 Aha... So less really is more... So much for my distortion theory. But what about the Shadow Quality? Does it run backwards also? Please expound. Thanks. Wow! My imagination runs wild! I'm not even gonna ask. 22196[/snapback] Eric, this is a female contraceptive, so your theories may be a bit backwards OK, I gotta stop here before Irondudes yank the thread, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cary OConnor Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Shadow Quality. An indication of how many cache samples to take in areas of shadowing. Higher numbers give more samples in regions of shadowingimproving shadow appearance at the expense of performance. Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlehnhaeuser Posted September 12, 2008 Author Share Posted September 12, 2008 Well the reduction in precision did the trick, thanks all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.