Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I have no idea how you come to this conclusion, to me
> 
> http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test1_o01.png
> 
> looks much better than:
> 
> http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test1_i05.png
> 
...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. 

>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

Post a reply to this message