Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>    1) 1024x768 for both passes as reference for quality and render time
>
>    2) first pass of only 256x192, second 1024x768 -> 38% render time, but
> there are many artefacts not present on case 1.
>
>    3) same as 2, but with focal blur (7 samples) -> 65% render time, no
> artefacts visible, and the image feels almost identical to case 1.
>
> > - How does Anti-Aliasing with jitter perform in comparison?
>
>    It works also to obtain better results for "scaled up radiosity", but
> doesn't eliminates all the artefacts as the focal blur trick does. And
> increasing the aa depth, the results were not much better, even with render
> times bigger than with focal blur.

What type of artifacts are we talking about? Black splotches? Generic "dirty"
look? Or the horizontally-smeared artifacts typical for samples gathered during
final trace?

If we're talking about the latter, then those are very strange results; maybe
there's a secret hidden in this approach that might help design a faster
pretrace algorithm.

Does changing the focal blur aperture have an effect on this?

Post a reply to this message