In article <3d293a2e@news.povray.org>, "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> 
wrote:

> Even when two blurred objects are close to each other and the rays ping
> pong?

The blur patch doesn't do anything special in that case. That can get 
very slow with the blur patch as well, and you need more samples to get 
fairly smooth results.


> That takes ages with the blur "trick" but the rendertime can be 
> considerably reduced with a low max_trace_level without any 
> noticeable difference.. Maybe MegaPOVs blurred reflection wouldn't 
> change it's speed with max_trace_level? It would be a better way 
> then, because a scene may have other objects that need a very high 
> max_trace_level.

There isn't any special difference between ordinary reflection and 
blurred reflection, max_trace_level behaves the same. A blur patch 
*could* do something like that, but the existing one doesn't.


> The best results are when the averaged normals are scaled very big, but then
> the layers have a random value .. if you understand what I mean ... with
> only a few layers, this does not always look good..

I don't understand. The part about using large scale normals is what 
makes the technique better than what the patch does, I don't know what 
you mean by "the layers have a random value".
With only a few layers, it doesn't look good...and the blur patch 
doesn't look good with only a few samples. Your point?


> Besides it seems a very big limitation that we can't apply both blur 
> *and* an ordinary normal pattern / image_map ... doing so does not 
> mix well without MegaPOV.

There aren't any problems with image_maps. You *can* mix normals and 
blur, it does get tricky though...a built-in feature would be simpler to 
use.

-- 
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