On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:18:59 -0400, Slime wrote:

>> It's method 2, actually
> 
> Do you know that method 2 with depth 9 is a possible 263,169 samples per
> pixel? =)

Actually, I didn't know that. :-)

> Of course, often you'll get much fewer than that... but even so, I doubt
> you'd ever notice a difference between depth 3 and 4, let alone 9.

Possibly - I may do one that's a depth 3/4 (heck, that'd give the other
processor something to do) to compare the results. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message