Wolfgang Wieser wrote:

> ...but 
   http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test1_i01.png
> looks better than 
   http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test1_o01.png
> doesn't it?
> 
> BTW, we're not talking about what _looks_ better but what matches 
> the actual surface better. 
> I'm saying this because of the different looks of the grainy cylinder. 
> Seems the grain size is in the order of the accuracy. 


I'm curious to see how the code below would look (close up), with the 
new patch. The lack of interpolation is very clear, I think:

 

isosurface {
  function{
   max(
    abs(x)-2,
    abs(y)-1,
    abs(z)-1,
    -(max(abs(x)-1,-y)),
    -(sqrt(pow(y-1,2)+z*z)-.5)
   )
  }
  accuracy .1
  max_gradient 2
  contained_by{box{<-2.1,-1.1,-1.1>,<2.1,1.1,1.1> }}

  rotate y*35
  pigment{
   bumps
   scale .125 translate<-2,1,0>
   color_map{[0 rgb 1][1 rgb .3]}
  }
}

 
>>Since you usually won't use tangential lighting in real scenes for such 
>>flat surfaces 
>>
>>
> Well, I think this argument won't help. Imagine an animation where 
> the object is moved relative to the light (rotation e.g.)...
> 
> When I think that we would not have all that discussion if R. Suzuki had 
> thought of the linear interpolation himself, then it's probably a good time 
> to say good night and go to bed... :)
> 
> Wolfgang

*sigh* I may have to learn how to compile soon...


-Sam

Post a reply to this message