clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 30.04.2010 21:34, schrieb Edouard:
>
> > I've got code to correct for this in my DF3 Proximity macros - the same problem
> > affects voxels with interpolation. I can change my macros if you change POV, but
> > is there a way to query a specific sub-version of POV? Can I query if I'm
> > running beta 37 vs beta 38?
>
> No, unfortunately there is no way to query sub-versions. You'll probably
> have to make a cut as soon as you switch to beta 38 (or whichever will
> introduce that change), and pretend that all 3.7 sub-versions have
> always behaved that way.
>
> After all, betas are still work in progress, so the behavior of version
> 3.7 is not fully defined until that version proper is released.

That's a fair call.

> > Also - are you sure its a bug? I managed to convince myself that it's the
> > correct behavior if the pixel's value is defined for the pixels coordinate (e.g.
> > <0,0>,<1,4>  or<1023,1023>) rather than half a pixel across (e.g.<0.5,0.5>,
> > <1.5,4.5>  or<1023.5,1023.5>). Does that make sense?
>
> Well, I guess that's a matter of definition. But I'm instead going by
> visual appearance, and cannot help but notice that the image /visually/
> shifts by half a pixel when turning on interpolation. And /that/ I do
> call a bug. If I want to smoothen an image, I typically don't want it to
> shift.

I think, technically, the uninterpolated image is in error, but that also breaks
people's expectations.

Also, think of mapping a square image onto a square poly with one corner at
<0,0> - do you want the value at <0,0> to be that of the corner most pixel?

> BTW, I didn't pay any thought to DF3s yet, so thanks for drawing my
> attention to those; while they use different code, I think it makes
> sense to have the same behavior for images and DF3s alike.

The code looks pretty cut and pasted, only with an extra dimension.

Cheers,
Edouard.

Post a reply to this message