|
 |
Warp wrote:
>
> Now tell me honestly: Which one of those images, the second or the third,
> looks better if you think about it as a water surface?
> If you are completely honest, you will admit that the third image has
> preserved better this feature of the noise3d function. If you imagine the
> second image as a water surface, it looks quite unnatural, while the third
> image looks much better.
> If it was unclear to you what are the (or my) requisites for noise3d, this
> should give an idea of it.
>
Now, I understand better. Yes, you're right that Megapov's
gives a more "watery" surface. OTOH I still think that in
other cases, my version is better (notice that I never said
it was better as an absolute, but only that there were
points where it was doing better ond other where it's not so
good). Now, the question remains: what do other people
think? If I'm the only one to see some good with my
function, I'll just shut up, but if enough people are
interrested, we should discuss how best to include both...
Jerome
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] iname com
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
