"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
> > Obviously this problem could easily be solved by forcing POV-Ray to take
> > more samples initially, so that it has a fair chance of hitting the
> > sphere in the first attempt. Unfortunately, POV-Ray 3.6 did not provide
> > for such a mechanism.
> >
> > This is where POV-Ray 3.7's two-parameter version of the blur_samples
> > setting comes in:
> >
> >      blur_samples MIN, MAX
> >    ... (etc.)...
>
> This is indeed a welcome change. I've had a similar problem with my recent
> underwater scene (e.g. tiny spheres, very close to the camera, with a more or
> less uniform background.) In 3.62, the '7-objects-only-syndrome' is very
> apparent--and adding more blur samples just makes the 7 spheres cleaner and more
> obvious. :-/
>
> I haven't yet had the chance to run my scene with 3.7RC6, but am looking forward
> to doing so. Thanks for tackling this issue! Kudos.

The aperture synthesized by focal_blur in 3.7 using min,max is good enough to
see coma aberration in a parabolic mirror! For the work I'm doing in optical
modeling, I just need to understand what happens in focal_blur when things start
to break down with extreme situations. Basically, when you start to see a
hexagonal structure, or lots of little hexagons, you've gone too far. I don't
know if this can be solved by using more HexGrids.

Post a reply to this message