"Mike Williams" <mik### [at] nospamplease> wrote in message
news:6mY### [at] econymdemoncouk...
>
> Hasn't it always been the case that POV is not guaranteed to behave in
> any sort of "expected" manner if you specify out-of-range values? The
> range checking in POV is kept weak, so that if someone happens to find
> that things like lights with negative brightness are useful in a
> particular scene then they can use them. If out-of-range values don't
> achieve anything useful, then don't use them.
>
> Filter values greater than 1 happen to behave rather strangely but the
> odd effects are usually not apparent when the filter is so close to 1.

Yes, I agree to that logic.  Just that I often use numbers beyond their
original intention and I usually don't see such extreme fluxuation like that
example shows.  Led me to believe the behavior has only recently changed
somehow.  That being to do with what Rune was working on quite a while back,
concerning transarency clipping or "correctness".  I always expected there
to be a smooth transition either way and yet this obviously is anything but.

Just so some of you check it out for yourselves and offer your own opinions,
that's all I care about.  I can't ask that the program adhere to
unconventional methods after all.

  ;-)

bob h

Post a reply to this message