> Just of curiosity: Is there any benefit of the "big normals" approach at
> blurred reflections over the "micronormals" approach?
> 
> After all, the micronormals approach has the benefit of working in a
> single pass if antialiasing or focal blur is used, and as it seems it's
> also better suited to be mixed with standard bump mapping (let alone that
> it is the more "natural" approach at blurred reflections) - so what does
> the "big normals" approach offer to make up for this?
> 

   Well, the micronormals trick usually needs insane aa settings to not look
grainy, while the macronormals one almost doesn't needs aa. In general, the
macronormals trick is faster for the same apparent smoothness, and doesn't
needs adjustments depending on the image resolution. But you are right about
micronormals being more "natural": they give apparently more accurate
results if you have enough patience.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message