>> Lets say you average 5 normals, using the bump pattern scaled
>> very big. Then you have 5 normals, but their directions are random.
>
>Right. It has to be that way, otherwise you wouldn't get blur. The
>problem is?

Well I'm not sure it has to be random.. I would think it's possible to use
the surface normal (of the object that's supposed to have blurred
reflection), as a starting point, and shoot rays in a circular pattern
around that surface normal.


> The existing blur patch looks awful with 5 samples, why are you
> complaining about the number needed by the averaged texture technique?
> The current blur patch is not any better!

I don't try to complain.  ;o)  I'm only pointing out some limitations.
Thanks for explaining the difference (or no difference) between the patch
and the averaged normals.


Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message