|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"R. Suzuki" wrote:
>
> That's impressive image!
>
Thank you!
>
> Have you tried "adaptive max_gradient" technique, which is already
> implemented in 3.5 beta?
>
> I think "adaptive accuracy" is not so useful as "adaptive max_gradient",
>
> The below code is an example.
> If you render it with accuracy=0.002 instead of 0.0001, you will
> see artifacts near the top of small peaks.
> On the other hand, if you render it with adaptive max_gradient
> (e.g. "evaluate 2, 1.2, 0.9" instead of "max_gradient 5") and with
> accuracy=0.0001, the image quality will be much better and the
> rendering speed will be comparable or rather faster than the above.
>
> Note that this technique does not guarantee artifact-free image
> and requires experiences to determine the "evaluate" parameters.
> (So, this should be only for advanced users.)
Hmm, seems i don't understand completely how evaluate works, but i
remember in the past (with megapov) that scenes using 'eval' sometimes
were much faster than with a sufficient max_gradient value. I will do
some more experiments on that...
NTL, what i meant with adaptive accuracy was adapting it to the distance
from viewpoint. Of course it could be useful to adapt max_gradient in the
same way.
> BTW, have you tried normal function pattern like below
> (commented out) for the foreground? I usually use it in such
> cases.
>
No, but it's an interesting idea, anyway i suppose with 'normal on' in
radiosity this will be quite slow too.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |