 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Considering all discusions about antialiasing I think it could be worth to
mention in 6.7.11.16 of new 3.5 documentation: is this image somehow
supersampled or not.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Considering all discusions about antialiasing I think it could be worth to
> mention in 6.7.11.16 of new 3.5 documentation: is this image somehow
> supersampled or not.
How can an image be supersampled?
Felix
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c77f048@news.povray.org>,
"Felix Wiemann" <Fel### [at] gmx net> wrote:
> How can an image be supersampled?
The function image is generated by taking a function (which may be a
pigment function) and sampling its color for each pixel. It would be
possible to take multiple samples per pixel, and get a smoother image...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> Considering all discusions about antialiasing I think it could be worth to
> mention in 6.7.11.16 of new 3.5 documentation: is this image somehow
> supersampled or not.
It is an image generated from a function, how would supersampling even make
sense at all without destroying the purpose the feature? The obvious answer
is that it does not make sense, and thus does not belong in the documentation.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:24:19 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> The obvious answer
> is that it does not make sense
As Chris Huff said "It would be
possible to take multiple samples per pixel, and get a smoother image...", and
I agree with him. Supersampling can take some time but use less memory in
outputed image.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
>> The obvious answer is that it does not make sense
>
> As Chris Huff said "It would be possible to take multiple samples per pixel
There is a difference between "does not make sense" and "would be possible":
If you want a smooth pattern, use pattern functions and not the function
image. If you just want a smooth "effect", set the appropriate interpolation
when using the generated image.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:21:42 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> There is a difference between "does not make sense" and "would be possible":
Right
> If you want a smooth pattern, use pattern functions and not the function
> image.
But when calculations of this functions are very complicated and this pattern
is intersected many times (for example via reflections) then image function is
afaik only alternative to speed things up.
> If you just want a smooth "effect", set the appropriate interpolation
> when using the generated image.
That's not the same, you know it.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> [...]
> > If you want a smooth pattern, use pattern functions and not the function
> > image.
>
> But when calculations of this functions are very complicated and this pattern
> is intersected many times (for example via reflections) then image function is
> afaik only alternative to speed things up.
You can always generate a function image from the slow function to speed
thinks up.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:23:48 +0100, Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> You can always generate a function image from the slow function to speed
> thinks up.
That's what I said! I want this function image. But I don't want waste memory
for high resolution but imagine that there could be supersampling in
generating this image to achive smooth (not interpolated) appearance.
Note that wasn't feature request. It was just explanation that it is not non
sense to use some kind of AA in function image.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That's what I said! I want this function image. But I don't want waste memory
> for high resolution but imagine that there could be supersampling in
> generating this image to achive smooth (not interpolated) appearance.
Could you tell me what is the difference between a smooth and an
interpolated image?
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
