|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Yes, because crude approximations to cylindrical columns look so much
>> more photo-realistic than actually cylindrical columns. Oh, wait...
>
> Consider what happens if your "approximation" results in sub-pixel-sized
> triangles. Then it becomes no more an approximation than yours does,
> considering *your* picture is also made out of pixels.
...until you have a reflection of the object where the triangles appear
bigger. Or a shadow cast in the wrong direction.
But yeah, sure, I am apparently the only person here who thinks that
real curves are superior to faked ones. I'll grant you that one.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |