"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> The point is that every time I started to mess with HF's, I wallowed in indecision
> about the resolution. If I made it too coarse, I could never do an animation later
> of a flyby close up or balls bouncing off of it or a man hiking up it. If I made it
> finer, it still wasn't going to be fine enough for whatever use I haven't thought up
> yet.
> 

I usually do the HF in several resolutions and use low for the test renders and
high for the final versions.  It's also possibe to combine two Heightfields, one
for the large scale and one for details in the foreground.  

> Isosurfaces have the same appeal over HF's that vector art has over 2d  bitmap
> painting, and really, 3D over vector and bitmap painting.  When I do my rolling
> algorithm, I set up my isosurface in an INC. When I need to accurately compute
> normals for the traces which determine particle trajectories, I set my
> accuracy=0.00001, when I trace, it's 0.01 or 0.001.
> 
> Vector programs didn't render bitmap painting obsolete, per se..............
> 

Agreed, but I like bitmap painting :-)

Christoph, who also likes vectorizing photographs...

--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message