To you both:

Yeah, some AA would definetely look good.
Ther are no coincident surfaces, inside the vase,
the rays is refracted and reflected so often, that
even a setting of 256 max_trace_level doesn't
help, because the ray probably just travels long
enough inside the vase to get darkened by fade_power...
But it isn't so obvious with some focal blur, looks more
like some curious refraction.

But all you guys have to wait for a AA version, it takes
SOOO much longer, and I cannot afford doing intensive
traces before I'm actually on a version where I can say
finished...

Steve wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:24:02 -0400, Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
> > news:3CC70DE3.C9D07958@gmx.de...
> >> Here's the original trace, not reduced in size. No focal-blur-AA,
> >> because that's time-intensive and makes it look nicer, not
> >> better.
> >
> >     If you say so.
> >
> >     I think this looks nice but I can't help but think that not having stair
> > stepping on the shoots would help. But the larger resolution allows some of
> > the detail that you worked so hard on show up.
> >
> >     There is still the unfortunate areas of the glass that looks like
> > coincident surfaces or something.
>
> I agree with Bill here, and think that the glass problem may also go away
> with some AA.
>
> --
> sphere{z*5,1pigment{rgb.5}finish{reflection.3specular.5}}box{<-50,-3,-50>
> <50,-2,50>pigment{checker/*\__\\__/  * \_\\__*/scale 2}finish{ambient.7}}
> light_source/*__\\__\\__\\__\\__\(    ~ )\__\\__\\__\\__\\*/{<2,5,1>*4,1}
> /*\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\~  -/__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\*//* Steve */

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message