"Justin Smith" <t74### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.3d9ceb442e983fbee07c96340@news.povray.org...
>
> Still, I can think of a couple things to try. First of all, a 500x500
source
> image isn't very large, and you're scaling it by 1000. The mesh polygons
> are going to be huge. I don't know enough to really challenge the comment
> that smaller source files will get rid of that problem, however it seems
to
> me that if you have smaller polygons in the end result, then the artifacts
> are going to be smaller and perhaps less noticeable. If you can get a much
> larger image for the source, like 5000x5000 or something, I'd say to try
> that out. You probably won't even need to turn on smooth with a source
> image that large. The downside is it would probably take a lot longer to
> render.

Yep, I sure hadn't seen it said anyplace that smaller files pieced together
might solve any problems with surface artifacts. Justin Smith certainly
points out the obvious, that larger files can produce finer details. Say,
Justin... if you could please remove some quoting in your replies that would
be nice :-)

I tried a 24bit color PNG image made from Adobe PS 5.0 LE and used as a HF
in place of Marcus'. It rendered very well using keyword smooth (on/off
isn't relevant nor possible) without artifacts or anything wrong except for
appearing somewhat blocky. With smooth commented out it was also okay, aside
from being completely faceted by the low resolution. Shadows looked okay,
colors looked okay. I didn't need to use double_illuminate but I did check
with and without it.

So I guess my question would be: what form of PNG is being used? Grayscale,
16bit or 24bit? Made with what program?

Bob

Post a reply to this message