H.A. van der Meiden wrote:
> 
> Dan Connelly wrote:
> > blah, blah, blah....

> You're right !

Miracles do happen....

> After some trial it seems that the absorption parameter is an
> exponentional falloff rate.
> ... 
> Unfortunatly high values for both absorption and emission (>2.0) result
> in noisy images, although high sample rates seem reduce this effect.
> Does anyone know why ?

I saw the same thing.  Think about it.... the code just randomly
sample the material using some magical algorithm.  The order in which
it does absorption and emission events has a big effect if each
event has a large impact.... the one done closest to the
surface wins.  Thus

(material depth / sampling count) min[absorption number , emission number]

should be much less than one if the effect is to be avoided.

But then, I've already more than used  up my "correct statement" quota
today :).

Dan

-- 
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/

Post a reply to this message