On 10/31/20 10:40 AM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>>
>> Thinking some of increasing the max allowed depth for AA method 1 to
>> perhaps 20.
>
> .... Because our renders aren't taking long enough.
>
>
:-) There is truth in that statement!
I've been playing most of today with "big jitter" AA. Attaching another
image / effect I liked. This one using +a0.0 +am2 +r6 +j467
The blurring is different than low sample or 2d weighted techniques.
Because the sampling rays continue to find the source scene, things
don't turn to mud until the jitter distances are really, really large.
No big surprise I guess, but it's interesting to see it in practice.
Prefix aside: There is a table in the documentation regarding the
maximum number of samples for any given +r recursion depth. As far as I
know it has more or less forever read:
M1 M2
1 1 9
2 4 25
3 9 81
4 16 289
5 25 1089
6 36 4225
7 49 16641
8 64 66049
9 81 263169
During the recent AA work I noticed it's wrong for method 2 AA. I
believe it should read:
1 1 4
2 4 9
3 9 25
4 16 81
5 25 289
6 36 1089
7 49 4225
8 64 16641
9 81 66049
Aside 1: Method 1 is R^2 samples max so +r20 it's only 400 samples -
which is much less than method 2's max of 66049. Even the +r6 for the
attached image used 1089. My frustration when playing with stuff like
the isosurface clouds has been not being able to get a larger number of
samples in a way which 'only' squares on the recursion depth.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'morebigjitter.jpg' (142 KB)
Preview of image 'morebigjitter.jpg'
|
