Cousin Ricky nous illumina en ce 2009-03-12 08:13 -->
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Just of curiosity: Is there any benefit of the "big normals" approach at blurred
>> reflections over the "micronormals" approach?
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is the "big normals" approach?
> 
> 

The "big normals" is done by averaging several normals that are scaled to a 
lagre value. Each averaged normal pattern is randomly translated by an egualy 
large value. A typical scale and translations is around 1000 to 1000000.
Benefit: don't need antialiasing. Often give beter results without antialiasing.
But: Often requires the averaging of more normals, often the alowed maximum of 
255 in a normal_map.

The micronormal use an average of normal patterns scaled very small and 
translated by a tiny random value. A typical scale and translate is around 0.001 
or smaller.
Benefit: usualy require the averaging of only a few normals, in some cases, only 
one normal can be used.
But: Work beter when using at least some antialiasing or the image can looks to 
grainy.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't waste your time on a man/woman, who isn't willing to waste their time on you.

Post a reply to this message