If you notice that when using image_map pigments the 'interpolate' makes
a big difference. Seems 2 is best to me, not 4. The isosurface probably
uses a similar convention itself rather than straight procedural
pigment. If it did it would obviously have no noticeable artifacts, or
so I would think. Perhaps there is a resolution limitation then? Based
upon the 1 POV unit square a pigment is usually confined to?


"SamuelT." wrote:
> 
> I have been fooling around with the new pigment add-on to the
> isosurface. It is very cool that we have this new ability for making
> more complex shapes. But... I can't get my surfaces perfectly smooth. I
> get darned close however.
> 
> Here is what I normally use in the isosurface statement to get maximum
> smoothness from the isosurface (I only put these things in when using
> the pigment feature):
> 
> accuracy .015
> method 2
> max_gradient 10
> 
> Tweaking the accuracy one way or another from it's current position will
> either make the surface choppy, or make a lot of black pixels appear.
> Changing the method has no perceived effects, except for render time. I
> can safely keep the max_gradient around 5 for most objects, but 10 is
> safe. Max_gradient only seems to fill in large holes that appear in the
> isosurface.
> 
> So, I have a couple questions in light of all this: can the program's
> code be altered to make the surface of these objects smoother? What can
> I do to the isosurface statement to get the results I want? I'm not a
> c++ programmer(I can barely program basic).
> 
> I would be very gratful if somebody has any answers to my questions.
> 
> Thank you,
>   Samuel Benge

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message