Thank you Christoph for the remark. I didn't have transparency,
semi-transparency in mind.

If it's not possible for each pixel to know the corresponding impact point, the
idea I have in mind won't work,

Thus I discuss with the hypothesis that it is possible to know the impact point
and the normal at the impact point of the ray ( maybe after tweaking the povray
code) .
Please forgive me in advance if some of the ideas are too naive. I don't know
the code of Povray, and there are obviously many difficulties that I'm not aware
of.

It seems to me that the visual inconsistancy comes in the boolean operations
at the intersection of two surfaces. For each
pixel, we associate the impact surface. If we find 2 *adjacent* pixels which
involve two different surfaces which appear in a boolean operation, then
there may be a visual problematic corner at this pair of points.

Among all these potential problematic junctions, we need to eliminate some of
them depending of some parameters ( distance between the impact points,
variation of the normal...)

We end up with a list of problematic pairs of points. Starting from a
problematic pair of point, which are more or less on the fillets, we construct a
zone of pixels around this pair corresponding to pixels whose impact is in a
zone that we want to smooth.

We then reach a list of pixels corresponding to zones that we want to smooth.
Then we apply an averaging filter on each zone.

There are obviously plenty of technical details to be fixed. This is just a
starting idea to round the corners without computing intersections with meshes.

Laurent.


clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 30.08.2016 um 21:50 schrieb lelama:
>
> > Does povray knows for each pixel on the rendered image to which surface it
> > corresponds and what is the normal at this point ? I suppose yes. If so, this is
> > maybe possible to do something on the rendered image...
>
> Nope; at the time POV-Ray assembles the image, it has already forgotten
> entirely how it came up with the colour values for the individual pixels.
>
> "Knowing for each pixel to which surface it corresponds" is also far
> less trivial than it sounds; take a glass sphere, for example: Does the
> pixel correspond to the surface of the sphere, or rather to the object
> behind it? And what about that other object seen as a reflection?

Post a reply to this message