Samuel Benge wrote:
>>
>> BTW, we're not talking about what _looks_ better but what matches the 
>> actual surface better. I'm saying this because of the different looks 
>> of the grainy cylinder. Seems the grain size is in the order of the 
>> accuracy. 

No, we are talking about what looks better.  Of course it has to 
resemble the actual model to look good but even some quite significant 
difference is acceptable as long as it looks reasonable.

And what you are referring to as 'grain' is simply the pattern function 
used.  The appearance of the cylinder is completely correct in all 
versions and does not profit much from the patch (the random differences 
are mostly due to aliasing).

> 
> I'm curious to see how the code below would look (close up), with the 
> new patch. The lack of interpolation is very clear, I think:

That's a good example, i rendered them in larger:

http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test2o.png
http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test2i.png

As clearly visible the patch only interpolates the t value (the distance 
of the intersection from the camera) it does nothing more!  Therefore 
most artefacts are still there.  Note the black areas are - as assumed 
previously - mostly caused by the use of the high accuracy values for 
normal calculation as well.  If i just use 1/10 of the value for the 
normal they are gone:

http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/files/sam_test2s.png

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message