"Hans-Detlev Fink" <hdf### [at] pecosde> wrote in message
news:3A670386.27BA903A@pe.cos.de...
> I'm not sure whether this one is better than the non-aa one.
> Probably truth lies in between.

Hmmm, okay.  Thanks(?)

> A trick that used to work quite well for me is to render
> without aa but with 50% more size (each, x and y), then blur
> it in Photoshop/Gimp/... (2-3 pixels) and finally scale it
> down to the desired format.
> This usually results in a very fine blur effect, less
> than aa in the renderer, thus leaving many of the details.

Yeah, used to do that a lot myself back in the 486 CPU days.  If the render can
be done within a day and at a large res. while using AA I'm not so tempted
anymore.  Btw, this was +a0.2 +r2 +am2 +j1.0

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message