"Thomas Lake" <tla### [at] REMOVE-THISshawca> wrote in message
news:3cdf07ae$1@news.povray.org...
> > Although I haven't personally tested it, I believe that if you
keep the
> > aperature *really* small, so that there's no real blurring, then
focal
> blur
> > won't be much slower than the other AA settings I gave you. If
they don't
> > work well, then at least give it a shot on a real small section of
the
> image
> > to see how slow it actually is.
>
> I'll do some benchmarks on a test scene and see.
>
>
Hi. Great pic with lots going on there. I've no complaints about it :)

I found focal_blur aperture 0.02 with defaults faster than +am2 +a0.2
in some cases and gives better results (pov doesn't use aa with
focal_blur).

An old image of mine with +am2 +a0.2, around 5 hours on a P166 is at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Alf_Peake/PC-BOARD.JPG (145K)

And with focal_blur aperture 0.02, about 30 mins on a Celeron 500 at
http://peake42.freeserve.co.uk/pix1/pcboard.jpg (168K)

The differences are easy to see, aa is better with one item and blur
better with another.

Hope this helps.

--
Alf

http://www.peake42.freeserve.co.uk/
http://www.qsl.net/gw3srg/

Post a reply to this message