stbenge <myu### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 12/19/2010 5:10 AM, Warp wrote:
> >    Sorry for asking, but for what possible reason would one want to
> > convert a mesh into an isosurface? A conversion to the other direction
> > would make sense and, in fact, be really useful (at least in terms of
> > rendering speed). However, converting a mesh to an isosurface seems to
> > be completely backwards. Why would one want to do that?

> Why wouldn't one want to do it?

  I don't know... maybe because rendering an isosurface takes about one
hundred or even one thousand times more time than rendering a mesh? The
more complicated the mesh, the slower an equivalent isosurface would be.

> If it could be done efficiently, a 
> person could give erosion to a statue, or add rusty lumps to an object, 
> at will.

  Those things can be done to a mesh, via subdivision and vertex
transformations. Of course this would require some coding, but it's
nevertheless possible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message