Am 18.02.2016 um 22:02 schrieb Stephen:

> BTW did not someone else say that it is bad Netiquette to top post?

At least he's now quoting /at all/ ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 2/18/2016 9:16 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 18.02.2016 um 22:02 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> BTW did not someone else say that it is bad Netiquette to top post?
>
> At least he's now quoting /at all/ ;)
>

"One day at a time. Sweet..." ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 16-02-18 15:38, clipka a écrit :
> Am 18.02.2016 um 20:29 schrieb Stephen:
>> I’ve named this Sven’s Bug because I noticed it running his code posted
>> in “15 Shapes Taking Forever” in povray.general
>> And so he gets his name on something. :-P
>>
>> There is a difference between renders with and without using Render
>> Block Size.
>> The images are with the windows QUICKRES.INI [800x600, AA 0.3] with and
>> without +BS8
>> I compared them in PaintShop Pro (XOR shows it best)
>
> Nothing in there that would surprise me.
>
> I see some tiny fluctuations in the results, which are normal -- and a
> few more pronounced differences at the objects' edges, which are quite
> obviously related to anti-aliasing.
>
> POV-Ray 3.7 performs anti-aliasing at the render block level, /before/
> assembling the blocks to an entire image. As a consequence, the decision
> to supersample any given pixel not only depends on the neighboring
> pixels, but also on whether the pixel is at a block boundary.
>
> Consequently, reducing the render block size, and therefore adding more
> block boundaries, will change the behaviour of anti-aliasing, and
> increase the risk of aliasing artifacts.
>
> So this is not a bug, just a drawback of how things are implemented.
>
>
> (Hey, what do you expect if you associate Sven's name with it?! :P)
>

Is it possible that using antialiasing method 2 could reduce that kind 
of artefacts?
With method 1, you sample the center of each pixel, and compare that 
with the neibors. With method 2, you start with samples at each corners 
that are then compared.

Post a reply to this message

Well, we can always hunt for more bugs and show them to CLipka. Never
give up. His thanks are certain. :-)

On 18.02.2016 16:02, Stephen wrote:
> Looks like it is just tolerances but you can't say I did not try.

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.02.2016 um 23:55 schrieb Alain:
> Is it possible that using antialiasing method 2 could reduce that kind
> of artefacts?
> With method 1, you sample the center of each pixel, and compare that
> with the neibors. With method 2, you start with samples at each corners
> that are then compared.

That may well be.

Note that even anti-aliasing mode 1 already does some extra work to try
to prevent such aliasing artifacts, by silently rendering the pixels
immediately to the top and left of each block again to check if
oversampling is necessary. This way, the same comparisons normally done
for pixels in the bulk of the block can also be applied to the pixels at
the boundary. But in the bulk the neighboring pixels would also have
been subject to potential oversampling already, while the extra pixels
at the boundary will never be oversampled. This /can/ lead to aliasing
artefacts at the boundaries that wouldn't be there in the bulk.

In mode 2, this difference can't happen because the oversampling
decision is based on original trace results, not on oversampled pixels.

Post a reply to this message

Le 18/02/2016 22:15, clipka a écrit :
> Am 18.02.2016 um 21:40 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
>> Yes, this is truly a good idea to use my name as identifier for this
>> bug, this way CLipka will enjoy much more having to think about it, and
>> to work with it. Full support from my side. Now we have implanted my
>> name even in his mind. Cool! :-D
>
> Someone hand me the Brain Bleach, please...
>

Hi, please look at my raised hand, with the metal rod  and its tiny red 
light at the end of it.

*** Flash ***

You are a good programmer coding days and nights to make povray better. 
you aim at releasing a major version soon and won't let you disturbed by 
small hindrance like hunger or need of sleep.

Have a good day.

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2016 8:30, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 18/02/2016 22:15, clipka a écrit :
>> Am 18.02.2016 um 21:40 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
>>> Yes, this is truly a good idea to use my name as identifier for this
>>> bug, this way CLipka will enjoy much more having to think about it, and
>>> to work with it. Full support from my side. Now we have implanted my
>>> name even in his mind. Cool! :-D
>>
>> Someone hand me the Brain Bleach, please...
>>
>
> Hi, please look at my raised hand, with the metal rod  and its tiny red
> light at the end of it.
>
> *** Flash ***
>
> You are a good programmer coding days and nights to make povray better.
> you aim at releasing a major version soon and won't let you disturbed by
> small hindrance like hunger or need of sleep.
>
> Have a good day.
>
>

[at least he can have sex]

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2/19/2016 7:30 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> Hi, please look at my raised hand, with the metal rod  and its tiny red
> light at the end of it.
>
> *** Flash ***
>
> You are a good programmer


Nah. It didn't work. :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.02.2016 um 08:30 schrieb Le_Forgeron:

>> Someone hand me the Brain Bleach, please...
>>
> 
> Hi, please look at my raised hand, with the metal rod  and its tiny red
> light at the end of it.
> 
> *** Flash ***
> 
> You are a good programmer coding days and nights to make povray better.
> you aim at releasing a major version soon and won't let you disturbed by
> small hindrance like hunger or need of sleep.
> 
> Have a good day.

In other words: Back to normal mode of operation.

Post a reply to this message

Can he..? POV-Ray's more important.

On 19.02.2016 02:53, Thomas de Groot wrote:

Post a reply to this message