"Hugo Asm" <hua### [at] post3teledk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3e138d3a$1@news.povray.org...

> Yes, and now I've got proof in my hand. I've setup a simple scene (I will
> post the source in p.b.s-f) and tried my own "one normal with HQ- AA"
method
> versus the common method you are suggesting "many normals averaged" and
the
> results speak loud. When there are more than one reflective object and the
> rays go ping-pong, my method is best:
>
> 1 normal and HQ AA:  2 minutes, 34 seconds.
> 32 averaged normals, without AA: 13 minutes, 0 seconds.
>
> The results look pretty much the same, except I got my AA and ... your
> method was measured without AA.. But when the scene doesn't have objects
> where the rays go ping-pong, your method are more than twice as fast as
> mine.

I disagree with you; i think that the method of old megaPOV is better for
the speed and the realism.
I tried to render blurred_reflection_test scene with mPOV 0.7:
reflection_blur 0.05
reflection_samples 35
no normal
+AM2 +A0.2 +R2 -J( it's enough) 800x600
2 minutes, 43 seconds on my PIII 733 Win98 system;
see and judge you the result of image posted in p.b.i..

I've a more remarks:
if you examine a metallic object, you can observe that it behaves
like a lens which blur the distant objects;
i think that we need a algorithm to simulate this like focal_blur of
a camera, but i'm not a programmer...

Regards,
Ceggi.

Post a reply to this message