Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> I plan to add jittering to my patch eventually, it should be quite easy.
> 

Sounds like a good idea to me.

> > I always thought a convolution matrix can only be applied to a
> > rastered pattern,
> 
> Why?
> 
> > at least you would have to specify some kind of scale factor for the
> > matrix IMO.
> 
> What? I don't know what you mean by "scale factor"...
> My patch allowed you to specify the size of the matrix separate from the
> number of elements, is that what you meant?
> 

I mean the convolution matrix has some scale in relation to the pattern, the
distance between two neighbored elements in the matrix must have some
representation in Pov-units.  Of course that's independent from the number of
elements...

> > If i understand things right, it's worth trying adaptive calculations
> > (like used with antialiasing) when working with a larger matrix.
> 
> That is the other method I was talking about. :-)
> Basically, sample along each axis, possibly with anti-aliasing and/or
> jitter.
> 

That's not exactly what i was thinking of, although it also sounds interesting. 
I meant a regular convolution matrix but leaving out elements in calculation
that are not neccessary.  Imagine fo example blurring a checker pattern leads to
a lot of identical elements in the matrix.  

After thinking a bit further about this idea it's probably not that feasible,
maybe just forget about it :-)

Christoph

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

Post a reply to this message