William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> It's valuable here. Fed the input on the left (no AA) - there is  much
> more 'line-ish' detail below what is seen. The am3 mode came out quite a
> bit faster than am2 for equivalent threshold and depth. The fixed am3
> and confidence set at 0.98. Resulting images not identical, but very close.
>
> With the example posted, it's the best choice.

So just to be clear: The image on the left is with NO AA, and the image on the
right is with the stochastic am3 method? That looks really good.
>
>
> And should add another very good reason to keep - and use - aa method 3
> is the stochastic seed capability. This lets us get a repeatable aa
> method 1, 2 type result without the randomness of the jitter in methods
> one and two.
>

So it seems to be the best thing to use for AA in animations... although there
are two notes in the documentation:
"Conversely you can produce exactly the same output each time. See also:
Stochastic Seed."

That sounds good. But...
"Note: The jitter sequence is also affected by the actual image content, and
will thus always differ between the frames of an animation."

If I understand this correctly, it makes me wonder if there *would* be a
visually noticiable jittering when using the am3 method. I guess I need to try
it, to see.

Thanks for these tests.

Post a reply to this message