My apologies.

I had misunderstood how the heightfield is actually constructed. I had thought
that the "height of the triangle area" was what depended on the the pigment
value, when it was more accurate to say that "corners of the triangle" are a
function of the pixel pigment.

It would be kind of difficult to do this for an image that's not pixel based.
Since it is always possible that the area otherwise occupied by a single pixel
could be non-constant. That is a vector path might separte two or more distinct
pigments.

On the other hand when this happens, it might be interesting to see the effect
of "averaging out", or "weighting by area", of the different pigments, to
determine the ultimate height of corresponding triangle corner.

I was ultimatley thinking about how an image, even anti-aliased still would
appear jagged, despite higher resolutions. This would ulitmatley be a result of
that fact that the image is pixel based.

I will try to upload an example when I get home from work.

Post a reply to this message