 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have already told you that I have been working on implementing new
antialiasing methods. Now I have finished it. You find a description of the
methods on the web page mentioned below. The code is cleaned up and a bit
documented. 6 test scenes are used and I have also added a java-script page
which allows better compairing of the test results.
You find documentation, source code, executable, test results on the web
page:
http://www.povworld.org/povray/aa.html
Note: This is an *unofficial* version of POV-Ray!
I have executables for Linux only.. if anybody can provide versions for
Windows and Macs please tell me.
F'up to p.unofficial.patches.
- Micha
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In povray.general Micha Riser <mri### [at] gmx net> wrote:
> I have already told you that I have been working on implementing new
> antialiasing methods. Now I have finished it. You find a description of the
> methods on the web page mentioned below. The code is cleaned up and a bit
> documented. 6 test scenes are used and I have also added a java-script page
> which allows better compairing of the test results.
Even though the idea and theory behind the new antialiasing methods sound
great, if I'm completely honest, the example pictures are not really
convincing. Although they do a somewhat better job in many cases, they still
don't do it so much better.
The test scene 6 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Even
though the description of the new methods sound like they would make the
image a lot better, in practice they don't perform radically better than
the existing methods in practice. The graininess is still there, and I don't
really see any considerable improvement with the new methods.
--
#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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Awesome! I hope this can make it into the next Megapov!! :-D You rule, man!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
> Awesome! I hope this can make it into the next Megapov!! :-D You rule, man!
I don't want to sound rude, but could you profundize on what is so
awesome in that? As I said in my other post, the example images are not
quite astonishing.
The theory behind the new antialiasing methods sounds interesting, but
example images in practice show no radical improvements, which is a
disappointment.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Even though the idea and theory behind the new antialiasing methods
> sound
> great, if I'm completely honest, the example pictures are not really
> convincing. Although they do a somewhat better job in many cases, they
> still don't do it so much better.
The new methods are thought as replacement/improvement of method 2. If you
compare method 4 to 2 in the examples 4 does in most scenes considerably
better. Especially the thin lines are much better! With that scene it does
even noticeable better than method 1 when you look at the lines in the
middle of the picture.
Compared method 4 to 1 it is true that there is not much improvement
visible though I can hardly objectively measure what is 'better'.
> The test scene 6 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Even
> though the description of the new methods sound like they would make the
> image a lot better, in practice they don't perform radically better than
> the existing methods in practice. The graininess is still there, and I
> don't really see any considerable improvement with the new methods.
>
Hmm, I really do not see much graininess in the test scene 6, test II,
method 4 left.. I'd say it is less than with method 1. I had limited the
test at 3 spp because I considered the results as 'close to the perfect'.
If there is still to much graininess for you, you can try lowering the AA
threshold with method 4 just a bit and you'll see that it gets better at
the critical places.
I would sum up the test results like that:
1 (concentrical circles): Method 4 needs fewer samples as both 1/2 to get a
nice result. Method 1 would need a huge number of samples to get a perfect
result.
2 (thin lines): Method 2 fails compleatly (You would need a threshold of 0
to get acceptable results). Method 1 gives good result at low settings but
at high settings the lines are not smooth in the middle. Method 4 soon
gives smooth lines on the left side and can compete with method 2 on the
right.
3 (small dots): Only Method 5 gives acceptable results.
4 (checker plane): Up to the distance where individual squares are
distinguisable method 4 does well. Behind, method 1 does besser. Best would
probably be to blur things from that distance on. Method 2 gives
catastrophical results.
5 (bricks): I cannot really conclude from this scene. Even the 'perfect'
scene has visible structures. Method 4/5 certainly do better than 2.
6 (real scene): IMO the graininess disappears faster with method 4 than
with the other methods.
- Micha
--
objects.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Objects Collection
book.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Book Project
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't want to sound rude, but could you profundize on what is so
> awesome in that? As I said in my other post, the example images are not
> quite astonishing.
I dunno about you, but I see plenty of improvement, and any improvement is
better. I find it 'awesome' that at least someone out there tried to make AA
in POV better and has suceeded.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> F'up to p.unofficial.patches.
I'm not subscribed to that group but I'd like to say a big thank you! This
really looks good! Not so long ago, I saw a plugin for a commercial
raytracer, that featured AA without moire patterns. Maybe Pov-Ray can do the
same now! ;o))
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tony[B] <ben### [at] catholicorg> wrote:
> I dunno about you, but I see plenty of improvement, and any improvement is
> better. I find it 'awesome' that at least someone out there tried to make AA
> in POV better and has suceeded.
Exactly which example image is 'awesome'? (Of course the "perfect" images
are, but I think those are not made with the regular antialiasing.)
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hugo" wrote:
> Not so long ago, I saw a plugin for a commercial
> raytracer, that featured AA without moire patterns.
AA without moire patterns can't exist AFAIK? It can only be reduced in some
cases, but not be prevented in all.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Mar 19)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Exactly which example image is 'awesome'? (Of course the "perfect"
> images
> are, but I think those are not made with the regular antialiasing.)
Actually the 'perfect' one of the torus scene has been produced with method
4 or 5 just with a lower threshold. All the others were rendered at 10x
size and scaled down with gimp (as a result of doing this these pictures
are also about half a pixel shifted (I remember reading that a
camera-is-a-half-pixel-off-bug has been fixed in 3.5)).
- Micha
--
objects.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Objects Collection
book.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Book Project
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
