>> Nor me. Very interesting.
>> But maybe that is why I use multiple media.
> 
> See the link in my previous post: it is documented and it does make sense :)
> 
>> Not to my eye. ;)
>> If you look at them using the df3 viewer Ooswa*. They are distinctly
>> different.
> 
> Oh that's really nice of you showing the Ooswa renders (I did not install it
> because of lack of time). These files are actually different because I applied
> a color map (from Python's matplotlib [afmhot]) before I exported them. Of
> course the color map is not uniform in R, G and B (this would only be true
> for a gray scale, right?).
> 
>> Great image BTW
>>
> 
> Thank you very much :) May I post the final render and code somehow in the end?
> (Maybe with reduced resolution due to the 5MB limit? Or do you collect large
> renders somewhere?)
> 
> Another point: the artifacts at the field unit cell borders are a bit
> annoying... The staircasing of the data at the tilted border of the hexagonal
> cell may be unavoidable in the end... See the attached render for a clear
> view of the problem. Is their any trick to "glue" the df3-data at these sides,
> so that no doubled or missing values arise? (What does the `sampling` statement
> in the related media sections do? Could higher values fix this? What about the
> interpolation? It is turned off in the attached image. A value of 1 (linear)
> gives better results than 2 and 3!)
> 

There is a very small horizontal gap. Try reducing the distance in that 
direction by a tiny amount. Another way is just not to place the camera 
directly perpendicularly to the array.

In most cases, interpolate 1 is good enough.
interpolate 2 will give artefacts if the value drop abruptly to zero. 
The interpolation will generate some small negative values that wrap 
around to near maximum : -0.00001 become +0.99999.
The same can appen with interpolate 3.
Interpolate 2 and 3 work best if the values never drop to zero.

sampling_method is used to sellec how the samples are taken.
samples indicate how many samples are taken along a ray from the camera 
as it traverse the media.
If the media is simple with smooth variations in density, some small 
values are usualy good enough.
If your media is complexe, have many interest points and overlaping 
medias, then, you usualy need to use a much larger value.
In your case, the default of 10 is probably to small. Try using some 
progresively larger values untill you don't notable improvement.

As the dots that are visible are rays that slip between different parts, 
more samples can't affect what you get.
Interpolating may cause the media to slightly bleed and may succesfuly 
hide tha tproblem.
Viewing the media at a slight angle, up-down or sideway, can also hide 
those parts.

Post a reply to this message