In article <3e143797@news.povray.org>, "ceggi" <ceg### [at] tiscalinetit> 
wrote:

> I disagree with you; i think that the method of old megaPOV is better for
> the speed and the realism.

Well, you are allowed to believe what you wish. It is no better at 
realism, that is a simple fact. And in the experience of myself and many 
others, it is much slower.


> 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...

It doesn't behave anything like a lens, you are on a wild goose chase.
Any surface is at least slightly blurry, and a curved surface can spread 
out light, smearing something like a lightbulb over an area of its 
surface. Regular raytracing only samples points, you need to track the 
ray "footprint" (by casting at least two slightly separated rays) and 
dim down rays that spread out a lot or use more samples for them.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message