Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>There is no "true antialiasing". The definition of anti-aliasing is exactly
>that, any method that works against the aliasing effect of a pixel based
>image.  Thus, any method that removes this effect is called anti-aliasing.

If you want to call it "best results antialiasing" is also OK for me.

>Actually, I don't think you will get any improvement using pyramid tracing.

Theorically you will get _full improvement_ (or _best results_).

>To the contrary, you only end up with extremely difficult intersection
>algorithms and still have to use some kind of averaging over the surfaces
>you find as they have textures.

That's the point in using pyramid tracing: "the averaging over the surfaces
even with textures". I thought you know what is was talking about.

>You only get a whole lot of really
>difficult to solve problems using anything but rays, hence all other
>approaches have more or less been abandoned for image generation - they
>simply offer no benefit whatsoever as far as realism or quality of an image
>is concerned.

I think you are wrong.

In the 2d case where "pyramid raytracing" is used successfully in many
vector drawing programs and render libs there is an alias removal bost
while compared to bad libraries that do simple pixel sampling (equivalent
to 3d raytracing).
An example library that does this kind of antialiasing in the 2d world is
http://www.levien.com/libart/

No current antialias method in povray can cope with a simple checker surface
at any distance while using pyramid raytracing have always best results at
any distance. If you use a checker structure with a program that uses
libart you'll see there's no energy lost at any distance (i.e. the picture
is neither completely black nor completely white.

Post a reply to this message