|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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] gmx de>
Homepage: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |