Am 01.09.2016 um 19:10 schrieb lelama:

> It seems to me that the visual inconsistancy comes in the boolean operations
> at the intersection of two surfaces. For each
> pixel, we associate the impact surface. If we find 2 *adjacent* pixels which
> involve two different surfaces which appear in a boolean operation, then
> there may be a visual problematic corner at this pair of points.
> 
> Among all these potential problematic junctions, we need to eliminate some of
> them depending of some parameters ( distance between the impact points,
> variation of the normal...)
> 
> We end up with a list of problematic pairs of points. Starting from a
> problematic pair of point, which are more or less on the fillets, we construct a
> zone of pixels around this pair corresponding to pixels whose impact is in a
> zone that we want to smooth.
> 
> We then reach a list of pixels corresponding to zones that we want to smooth.
> Then we apply an averaging filter on each zone.

That won't suffice. Beveled corners have the tendency to also appear
brighter than the adjacent flat surfaces, due to highlights: A flat
surface has only a single direction from which light will produce a
highlight on that surface; a curved surface like a beveled edge has a
wide choice of directions from which light will produce a highlight
/somewhere/ on that surface. A simple post-processing averaging filter
can't create that effect out of thin air.

Post a reply to this message