Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Good luck in doing so.  Note any such technique will have to modify the 
> very basic concept of raytracing with additions like ray differentials 
> and you will have a hard time making this work efficiently in arbitrary 
> cases (i.e. non-standard camera types, reflections/refactions etc.).  In 
> the end i doubt this will lead to better results in shorter time (but i 
> will be happy to be proven wrong).

  For surfaces seen directly by the camera it's enough to know the length
of the ray and the scale of the image map.
  For surfaces seen indirectly an estimation will usually be more than
enough.
  Pathological cases exist, of course, but I'm pretty sure many people would
be very happy even with an estimated version.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message