 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The docs give the default media settings (relevant to this post) as:
method 3
intervals 10
samples 1,1
This would apparently not take advantage of the adaptive sampling
available under method 3, since this is only performed when the minimum
samples value is set at 3 or greater.
Having adaptive sampling "turned off" by default because the default
samples values are set to a minimum might make sense in terms of
consistency if the intervals value was set to a minimum as well.
However, it is clearly not and furthermore in apparent contradiction to
the recommended interval setting for method 3.
I am particularly puzzled about this. While it seems obviously
inconsistent to me, I have been unable to find any relevant discussions
or questions on the pov newsgroups (yet).
Could someone clarify or corroborate?
Abe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> samples 1,1
I think that's only the default for sampling method 1. I think that the
default for method 3 is 5 samples, but I forget where I heard or inferred
that.
Also, the default number of intervals for method 3 is, I think, 1.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Slime" <fak### [at] email address> wrote:
> > samples 1,1
>
>
> I think that's only the default for sampling method 1. I think that the
> default for method 3 is 5 samples, but I forget where I heard or inferred
> that.
>
> Also, the default number of intervals for method 3 is, I think, 1.
>
> - Slime
> [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
What you say would certainly make sense, in which case the documentation on
that part would be flat wrong/incomplete. However, I'm not completely
convinced that this is the case (without examining the code). In particular
I believe that I have experienced rendering differences when depending on
the default number of intervals and explicitly setting intervals to 1. I
should probably cook up a test scene to support this.
Abe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What you say would certainly make sense, in which case the documentation
on
> that part would be flat wrong/incomplete.
That particular section of the documentation is poorly put together, in my
opinion. The reason for this is that the first part (before the "Note") was
what the section contained in POV-Ray 3.1, and then in POV-Ray 3.5 the rest
was added. This causes people to think that a lot of the details which
actually pertain only to method 1 also pertain to methods 2 and 3. It
probably should have been rewritten when different methods were introduced
to avoid this confusion.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
