|
 |
In povray.general Slime <fak### [at] email address> wrote:
> Do you know that method 2 with depth 9 is a possible 263,169 samples per
> pixel? =)
> Of course, often you'll get much fewer than that... but even so, I doubt
> you'd ever notice a difference between depth 3 and 4, let alone 9.
According to my experience method 2 gives higher quality results at
bigger threshold values than method 1.
Using a very high number of samples is reasonable only if there are
*tons* of subpixel-sized details. This is usually rare.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
