 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff wrote:
> And now you have to project it, with perspective, onto a plane,
Oops, forgot perspective. NEVERMIND!
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> Ahh, but you need to think even further outside the box: what does a
> negative transmit do?
A black hole? ;)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ben Chambers
Subject: Re: More methods? was Re: anti-aliasing
Date: 14 Feb 2002 01:05:30
Message: <3c6b53aa@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:3c6ade73@news.povray.org...
> Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> :> Does it work for reflections/refractions as well?-)
>
> : Does the current method? I was under the impression that supersampling
was
> : done only on the rays shot from the view plane, and not on reflection /
> : refracted rays.
>
> Of course it works for reflections/refractions. If the pixel color
> difference threshold is reached, then another ray is shot from the camera.
> This ray will (probably) also reflect/refract from the same object, thus
> sampling whatever is reflected/refracted.
But you're still talking about rays from the camera. I thought you meant
that reflected / refracted rays themselves were supersampled :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ben Chambers
Subject: Re: More methods? was Re: anti-aliasing
Date: 14 Feb 2002 01:07:51
Message: <3c6b5437@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> In article <3c6ad4df@news.povray.org>,
> "Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>
> > Such a setting belongs in the INI file, not in the scene.
>
> The .ini file is no place for an object-specific attribute.
But it ~is~ the place to place instructions for how to sample a scene.
> Hairs, any kind of cabling, ropes or strings, screens or gratings, chain
> link fences, stars, cracks (like in floors or walls), wood, small
> text...I could come up with more.
You're right, of course, I just wasn't being creative at the time I wrote it
:)
> You can usually get good results with
> with the existing adaptive method, but not always.
True, as with everything. Another method would be good, not because the
current method is impossible to use, but just to have another tool in your
belt :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ben Chambers
Subject: Re: More methods? was Re: anti-aliasing
Date: 14 Feb 2002 01:10:38
Message: <3c6b54de@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
> In article <3C6AE046.5D095B2C@scifi-fantasy.com>,
> "Timothy R. Cook" <tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote:
>
> > So because it can't be done for everything, it isn't done at all.
>
> It would be very difficult, probably requiring a rewrite, and about the
> only thing it would work for would be triangles and polygons. Even
> spheres would probably be too difficult...where's the edge of an
> unevenly scaled and rotated sphere?
Easy. Rotate and scale the eye, and then it becomes a normal sphere :)
> And then you have things like the
> different camera types, camera normals, etc, which would make it
> unuseable for any object...
No, just some objects. And besides, most (all?) objects have bounding
shapes which can be used for the guesswork :)
> It is simply not worth implementing for the few cases it would actually
> be any help.
I disagree here, but I don't know how much work would be required in the
implementation.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ben Chambers
Subject: Re: More methods? was Re: anti-aliasing
Date: 14 Feb 2002 01:12:35
Message: <3c6b5553@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Timothy R. Cook" <tim### [at] scifi-fantasycom> wrote in message
news:3C6AF52E.61011A6C@scifi-fantasy.com...
> Rune wrote:
> > Unless it's something extremely simple, like, say, changing the
> > way transmit works outside of the 0 to 1 range to a more logical
> > behavior.
>
> How exactly DOES transmit work, anyways? Amount of light able
> to pass through the object? 0 being none, 1 being all...more
> than 1 being...the object adds light to that passing through it?
> That would be cool. If that's how it works, I wanna try that
> out!
That's how it used to work (don't know if it still does), I used that effect
for a while :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ben Chambers
Subject: Re: More methods? was Re: anti-aliasing
Date: 14 Feb 2002 01:15:15
Message: <3c6b55f3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> Correction: it deals with edges that are within a pixel of the edge of the
> bounding box. This is a far cry from all edges, even for simple boxes and
> cylinders (consider rotation.)
Hmm... good point... perhaps something along the lines of a stencil buffer?
Though, you would need a bit-plane for every object, so it would gobble up
huge amounts of RAM.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
>
> "Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
> news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
>
> Easy. Rotate and scale the eye, and then it becomes a normal sphere :)
>
But then your distribution to anti-alias should still be modified
according to the transformation, because what would be a regular grid
would not stay so on the other side of the transformation.
You moved the problem from the object to the camera.
The number of camera is half the number of objects, but I'm not sure
adding transformation to antialiasing in camera is simpler...
> > And then you have things like the
> > different camera types, camera normals, etc, which would make it
> > unuseable for any object...
>
> No, just some objects. And besides, most (all?) objects have bounding
> shapes which can be used for the guesswork :)
Not all. Plane do not, and they are often used in CSG... which
came back to the eternal problem to compute the smallest bounding box
for any CSG.
And guessing is just another way to take samples...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
> You're always welcome to solve for the formula defining the
> intersection of a complex isosurfaces with noise, and a atanh julia
> fractal :)
You, pervert ;-)
And people just think that raytracing is just about
reflective sphere on checkered plane.
Or checkered sphere on reflective plane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
> You're always welcome to solve for the formula defining the
> intersection of a complex isosurfaces with noise, and a atanh julia
> fractal :)
I remember my HS chemistry book that had a small portion of
Heisenberg's uncertainty formula, and an image of the solution
to the whole thing...if THAT can be done, I'm sure a complex
isosurface with noise and an atanh julia fractal could be done ;)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
