On 04/06/2018 01:44 PM, clipka wrote:
> Sorry, I'm a bit late in replying to this one.
> Am 18.02.2018 um 16:40 schrieb William F Pokorny:
>> Note: I recommend jitter alway be 0 given our current implementation
>> unless a noisy, expensive to AA result is what you want.
> I'm a bit reluctant to throw jitter overboard entirely (even for an
> individual sampling method, particularly the default one).
Agree given it already exists as is and folks have likely used it in
scenes. I have it still in my sandbox media branches.
> When a scene
> contains other sources of image noise anyway (such as subsurface light
> transport, jittered area lights, blurred reflections or focal blur),
> increasing media jitter may actually be a better choice performance-wise
> than cranking up the media sampling quality parameters.
If rendering a non-uniform density accurately is your aim, I don't agree
with the last of this sentence for method 3 jitter. Method 3 jitter is
Jitter tends to help 'resolve non-unform media densities' with methods 1
& 2. Jitter often helps as an option implemented in other than media. In
those cases jitter amounts to less uniform sampling toward a still
accurate result. In method 3, jitter - as implemented today - acts
against the sampling approach even aside from github issue(s):
Elsewhere - or maybe only as a thought floating about my head - I've
suggested a new method 3 aa_jitter feature might be useful. This a
jitter with an effect more in line with jitter in the other two media
methods. I wouldn't be free to method 3 performance of course...
Post a reply to this message