 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3.2.8.7 Anti-Aliasing Options (also in the wiki)
Underneath the 'recursive super-sampling' diagram, it says...
"Note: The maximum number of samples in the recursive case is hardly ever
reached for a given pixel. If the recursive method is used with no anti-aliasing
each pixel will be the average of the rays traced at its corners. In most cases
a recursion level of three is sufficient."
"...If the recursive method is used with no anti-aliasing ..." ?? Uh, with NO
anti-aliasing? Maybe I'm not grasping what is meant there (and never have), but
that sounds illogical (?) It has been in the docs forever, so even now I was
hesitating to mention it; but it has always seemed strange to me.
In the wiki:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Tracing_Options#Anti-Aliasing_Options
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alain
Subject: Re: 3.2.8.7 Anti-Aliasing Options -- a small correction?
Date: 8 Feb 2018 16:48:23
Message: <5a7cc5a7$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-02-07 à 05:57, Kenneth a écrit :
> 3.2.8.7 Anti-Aliasing Options (also in the wiki)
>
> Underneath the 'recursive super-sampling' diagram, it says...
> "Note: The maximum number of samples in the recursive case is hardly ever
> reached for a given pixel. If the recursive method is used with no anti-aliasing
> each pixel will be the average of the rays traced at its corners. In most cases
> a recursion level of three is sufficient."
>
> "...If the recursive method is used with no anti-aliasing ..." ?? Uh, with NO
> anti-aliasing? Maybe I'm not grasping what is meant there (and never have), but
> that sounds illogical (?) It has been in the docs forever, so even now I was
> hesitating to mention it; but it has always seemed strange to me.
>
> In the wiki:
>
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Tracing_Options#Anti-Aliasing_Options
>
>
>
That,s for +am2.
I think that it mean that if the anti-aliasing threshold is not
reatched, then you get the average of those 4 sub-pixels with no further
subsampling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <kua### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
>
> That,s for +am2.
> I think that it mean that if the anti-aliasing threshold is not
> reatched...
Maybe so. If that's the case, then I think a different phrase needs to be used,
rather than "no anti-aliasing". Otherwise, the sentence looks kind of like: 'use
anti-aliasing while not using anti-aliasing' (!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Holsenback
Subject: Re: 3.2.8.7 Anti-Aliasing Options -- a small correction?
Date: 10 Feb 2018 14:47:00
Message: <5a7f4c34$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/8/2018 6:51 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Alain <kua### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>
>>
>> That,s for +am2.
>> I think that it mean that if the anti-aliasing threshold is not
>> reatched...
>
> Maybe so. If that's the case, then I think a different phrase needs to be used,
> rather than "no anti-aliasing". Otherwise, the sentence looks kind of like: 'use
> anti-aliasing while not using anti-aliasing' (!)
mo betta?
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Tracing_Options#Anti-Aliasing_Options
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
>
> mo betta?
> http://wiki.povray.org/content/Reference:Tracing_Options#Anti-Aliasing_Options
Hey, that's great; MUCH clearer now. Thanks bunches.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
