>Question concerning conclusion:
>
>You mentioned you used a very poor image resolution
>for the tests. I can forgive that but I am curious
>at to how each process looked in comparison. One of
>the very nice features of a lathe object is the high
>order math functions used in their implementaion.
>The surface smoothness is equal to that of the sphere
>object. Meshes, patches, polygons, and the other methods
>notoriously have a problem with faceting because they
>are constructed from flat surfaces.
>
>  So I guess the question is are they all comparable
>or are you trading quality for speed ?
>
>Ken Tyler

Hi Ken:

His observation is very opportune.  At my conclusion i not did consider the
characteristics of the lathe than you indicates.

The objective initial was check the benefits of convert a lathe to mesh,
suggestted by Vives-Anning. At second instance, i pretend know techniques to
reduce the time of render and reduce the necessities of hardware. This me
allows do one image with more amount of elements, keepping a time reasonable
of render.  Obviously is sacrificed the quality by the quickness.  However,
at one image good studied the reduction of quality it can pass unnoticed.
This can be observed at the following images:

- Lathe to mesh:      http://www.ctav.es/jaime/barrabar.jpg

- Patch to height-field:
http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1998-02-28/temple.jpg

Thanks by his attention.

Guillermo Espitia

Post a reply to this message