In article <3c6b54de@news.povray.org>,
 "Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> > And then you have things like the
> > different camera types, camera normals, etc, which would make it
> > unuseable for any object...
> 
> No, just some objects. 

Nope, all of them. A camera normal will completely screw up any 
calculations you come up with. You would also have to completely rewrite 
it for each projection...some of which are probably also not reversable.
You would pretty much have to reduce the objects to triangles to do it 
for the simplest cases...might as well use a scanline renderer at that 
point.


> And besides, most (all?) objects have bounding
> shapes which can be used for the guesswork :)

Often very loose, and with nowhere close to corresponding to the 
object's edges.


> > It is simply not worth implementing for the few cases it would actually
> > be any help.
> 
> I disagree here, but I don't know how much work would be required in the
> implementation.

Then think about it until you understand. The amount of work would 
probably be greater than rewriting all of POV (and would probably 
require just this), and you would end up with something that does what a 
scanline renderer does, but much slower. Just so you can get 
near-perfect antialiasing of a couple objects, sometimes, and slower 
than the equivalent adaptive settings.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message