On 17/06/2018 17:36, clipka wrote:
> As for the `no_image` keyword, marking an object in this manner will (or
> at least is intended to) cause it to/not/  "be there" - i.e. have /no
> effect whatsoever/ - in the context of primary rays, while still "being
> there" in the context of secondary rays (e.g shadow computations and
> reflections).

 From my tests that is what happens.
Maybe it should be spelt out in the documentation?
 From my reading that case is undefined.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message