Ken wrote:

> Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> > > I never got around to using atmospheric media and know little of it's
> > > capabilities. Perhaps a better request would be to incorporate
> > > different sampling methods into the media feature itself. As has been
> > > mentioned Chris Young choose the monte carlo version of sampling
> > > but there are other methods available. I know too little to comment
> > > more, but it seems possible the feature can be added on to, to increase
> > > it's effectiveness.
> >
> > I agree.  The biggest problem is the monte-carlo sampling.  I just sent
> > a message to Chris about it (before reading this).  I modified my version
> > of POV to use uniform samples up to the minimum samples (and monte-carlo
> > after that).  When I set min and max samples the same (so you never go
> > above the min samples), media is just as smooth as a halo (I haven't
> > tried atmosphere).  The render time for the same number of samples is
> > almost the same, too (media is still a touch slower, but that may be
> > my compiler).
> >
> > Have you heard of any other sampling techniques?
> >
> > -Nathan
>
>  No more than a few vague mentions from Chris in his infrequent
> public announcements. I think I might have seen some info at
> the RTNews site but could not say in which issue.
>
> http://www.acm.org/tog/resources/RTNews/html/
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Here is a link to what looks like a usenet discussion about the
relevant problems encountered using monte carlo sampling methods.
While not directly tied into media and scattering the discussion focuses
on the illuminary properties and raytracing problems and benefits
associated with it's use.

http://www.acm.org/tog/resources/RTNews/html/rtnv10n2.html#art6

I found it enlightening :)

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message