Mike Thorn wrote:
> It all sounds logical, but why not just use fewer photons from the
> start? You would accomplish basically the same result.

This is what I did till now, and what I'm still doing. But you have no
other choice but to tweak the amount of photons until it fits or until
you're satisfied with the result. What if the photon-tracing process
takes a few hours (or even days), after which you see that you could
have used twice as much.. or that you would have needed more memory?
If you have refracting objects, the real amount of photons increases
exponentially, so you can't guess the value to put into your setting
by hand.

> 
> ~Mike
Dave

-- 
Dave "tPassive" Vogt | Linux  user  #225040 | www.frozenbrain.com     |
_____________________|______________________|_________________________|
List of Spam filter victims: http://frozenbrain.com/rel.php/victims   |
PGP Key:                     http://frozenbrain.com/public_key.asc    /

Post a reply to this message