Havn’t posted here in a while. I just finished with this pic I’ve been playin around with for a few days. It took me around 22 hours to render so unless I get some really good crits im not going to update anytime soon. It has AO @ 7 and OSA on 8. Didn’t quite turn out like I had thought it would but then again, when do they ever. [email protected] are welcome.
PIC: http://zachgmedia.com/Azul.JPG
TraceR
Awww, a jpeg. 
It looks scary, kinda like Riven or something.
How did it take 22 hours to render!? That’s insane, I don’t think Hans’ kitchen took that long.
It’s in the Yafray section:
No, his took 40 hours. 
Nooo! My eyes! :o How could you desecrate 22 hours of render time with a 20% quality jpeg?! Let me guess…MS Paint, right?
Yea, its possible with my comp. Got a 1.5GHZ, 256MB of RAM and a 16MB ATI card.
Render it again, then save it as a raw targa and a PNG.
nice concept dewd 
and yeah it is a bit wierd that it took that long ( perhaps its the fire effect? ) but i undestand how its low quality if its yafray i had the same experiance its just a matter of setting the right lights wich I havent got the time to experiment with
REndering it as a jpeg won’t speed it up you know. THe image is saved in a buffer and then prosccessed when you save it.
Well what do u suggest I render it as?
You just render it, then you can select how you want to save it. Saving a bitmap would be good for other people to download.
Then save it as a PNG. THis will be good for internet viewing.
But whatever you do, DON’T’ save it as a jpeg.
No offence but 22 hours for that simple thing is quite long, though I don’t blaim you if your graphics card is crappy.
PNG uses a lossless compression algorithm (and a couple of other tricks)… ‘Bitmap’ (I presume you mean MS’s proprietary bitmap format here?) is pretty much useless except for wasting space.
I’ve personally never had trouble with JPEG export from blender, but then I normally save at 90+% quality if I’m going to do that…
The Eye of Horus above the door is awfully pixelated. I will guess it’s just an image file used as a texure (not modelled)… smooth it out in gimp. or even trace over it with the path tool set to AntiAlias… just to get it nice and smooth.
The whole picture is very… blue. too much so for me, but I guess it was intentional.
I actully modeled that with halos. I’ll try what you said. 
No offence but 22 hours for that simple thing is quite long, though I don’t blaim you if your graphics card is crappy.
The graphics card is only minimally involved with rendering (it handles display only) Its your CPU that’s slow, and maybe the osa bug in 2.34 (discussed in this thread).
I agree with Gr8RedShark about the “too blue” thing… also your scene composition kinda lacks a compelling center of interest. Makes you ask “Why am I looking at this scene?” Need a good reason to keep looking, I guess…
haha, ive used his comp before, it STINKS!! 
all my crits have been said already.
Thanks for the positive comments Orion! :Z lol
It’s not that hard to get a new comp. You can get one over 2 ghz for only about 400 dollars.
so you modelled the eye. cool. i wouldn’t have used halos myself, though, but I’m not sure what kind of effect you’re trying to achieve. If you want to model it, You could use the existing model you have (what did you use? nurbs? mesh? nurbs-conver-to-mesh?) then maybe give it some radiosity. that would make it glow a little. but using halos seems to have made it very pixilated, and maybe slow in render.
What I was talking about before was that sometimes, I download images from the net, but they need to be touched up and “depixilated” before they’re suitable for use. But that was when I assumed you were actually using an image map.
Yeah, the scene looks pretty generic, sorry… there’s no real realism. But I can’t criticise, I haven’t rendered anything yet, I’m trying to think of something to render… and my lighting sucks.
