|
|
nos### [at] econymdemoncouk news:pVu### [at] econymdemoncouk
> <http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm>
> <http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/param.htm>
Thanks, that is exacly it :)
> It turns out that in most cases converting a non-parametric isosurface
> into a mesh of reasonable quality takes much longer than rendering the
> isosurface.
Yes, but if scene uses hi-quality radiosity, area-lights, reflections, DOF,
and so on, and calculating each pixel of image have to trace thiusands of
points, half of them hitting isosurface?
Also, I can once create isosurface and the re-run render playing with some
settings like lights, other objects, camera, and so on :)
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|