Workaroud:

Render it with 4xSize and scale it down with your favourite Graphics 
Program :) <Just kiddin>

Good point, i didn't realize it until i checked back with the bwstripes.pov

I fully support the optional handling

Arne

Rune schrieb:
> In POV-Ray 3.5 antialiasing was done after clipping the color to the range
> 0...1. In POV-Ray 3.6 this has been changed so that antialiasing is done
> before clipping.
> 
> Before 3.6 this issue had been discussed here in the groups on several
> occasions and there were both quite some people who found the 3.5 behavior
> correct and quite some who found it incorrect.
> 
> The commonly mentioned advantage of the new 3.6 behavior is that starfields
> with sub-pixel sized (but very bright) stars will now show up.
> 
> The disadvantage is that all objects or textures with very bright (or
> brightly lit) colors will now have jagged edges even though AA is turned on.
> 
> This can be demonstrated by this simple scene:
> // +w160 +h120 +a0.3
> sphere {z, 0.5 pigment {rgb 10} finish {ambient 1 diffuse 0}}
> 
> One might argue that the sphere doesn't need to be that bright, but if it's
> used as a light-source in a radiosity scene, it might actually need to be
> that bright.
> 
> One of the advanced sample scenes that comes with both POV-Ray 3.5 and 3.6
> "bwstripe.pov" is seriously ill affected by the new behavior, and looks
> really bad, since it was highly dependent on the color clipping being done
> prior to the antialiasing.
> 
> Also, in povray.binaries.images, several people have seen the bad effects of
> the new behavior. On an overexposured white table the objects have jagged
> edges, and in another picture with some laser beams, those beams are awfully
> jagged.
> 
> Despite how bad these jagged edges look, some people argue that they are
> *desirable* because they are *realistic* since real cameras work the same
> way. I don't think this makes sense. In real cameras overexposure makes a
> glow that is often much larger than a pixel. This is the job of focal blur
> (which *should* be done prior to clipping), not antialiasing.
> 
> Anyway, my point is, making a new feature is fine as long as it is optional,
> but making it at the cost of braking an old feature is very disrespectful to
> those who liked the old feature and found it to be the current behavior.
> 
> I hope the new antialiasing behavior will either be changed back or be made
> optional very soon...
> 
> Rune

Post a reply to this message