Hi Folks,


I was on a testdrive with the lightsys from Jaime V. Piqueres and the 
result with POV V3.6 doesn't make me happy.
So i decided to do a primary tests: the 'test_cornell.pov' from Jaime.
After rendering (800x600, +fn, +a0.1) and seeing the pic 
(test_cornell-v36.jpg) I thought "Where the f... this artefacts came 
from ?".
OK, lets go to more basic: use cornell.pov from the original POV-scenes.
For comparism with the first pic the same para's: the result 
cornell_v35.jpg. "... the same sh*t..."
OK, next try: use the 'good old' POV 3.5 and it's original cornell-box:
And viola ... this is what I'm calling 'the right picture'.

Resulting Question: where came this f***ing artefacts in 3.6 from ? 
Is there any possible bug in 3.6 radiosity ?

many greets & thnx

    Steffen

P.S. my computer: PIV, 2.4GHz, 1024 MB, W2KSP4 German

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'test_cornell_v36.jpg' (30 KB) Download 'cornell_v36.jpg' (29 KB) Download 'cornell_v35.jpg' (28 KB)

Preview of image 'test_cornell_v36.jpg'

Preview of image 'cornell_v36.jpg'

Preview of image 'cornell_v35.jpg'

St. Prietz wrote:
> 
> "Where the f... this artefacts came 
> [...]
> "... the same sh*t..."
> [...]

Your language is completely inappropriate for these newsgroups.

Apart from that that fact that you try to sell this to us as a radiosity 
bug to me clearly indicates that you have not bothered to do some more 
detailed research before claiming to have found a bug.  You could have 
easily seen that without antialiasing or with '+am2' you get smooth results.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> St. Prietz wrote:
> >
> > "Where the f... this artefacts came
> > [...]
> > "... the same sh*t..."
> > [...]
>
> Your language is completely inappropriate for these newsgroups.
>
> Apart from that that fact that you try to sell this to us as a radiosity
> bug to me clearly indicates that you have not bothered to do some more
> detailed research before claiming to have found a bug.  You could have
> easily seen that without antialiasing or with '+am2' you get smooth results.
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
> HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
> Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____.//^>_*_<^/.______

Hi Christoph,

sorry for my improper expressions, but i was very confused last night. And
thanks for your help.
Was there any hint for changing the sampling method for AA from 3.5 to 3.6
I've not seen ? Or is the difference in the pics an effect from the new
'unclipped radiosity values' ?

Thnx (and again sorry)
            Steffen

Post a reply to this message

espri128 wrote:

> Hi Christoph,
> 
> sorry for my improper expressions, but i was very confused last night. And
> thanks for your help.
> Was there any hint for changing the sampling method for AA from 3.5 to 3.6
> I've not seen ? Or is the difference in the pics an effect from the new
> 'unclipped radiosity values' ?

IIRC, AA was changed to perfrom the operation before clipping instead of 
after clipping.

... I assume the posts you made had an assumed gamma setting in the 
global settings? This appears to be the source of the artifacts you are 
experiencing (assumed_gamma + high-quality antialiasing).

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message