|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I was mostly referring to speed, apart from that it's never good if a
> technique totally depends on aa (or focal_blur) to function.
Well, for speed reasons, I can't recommend any of both techniques... :)
But your right about the dependance of the technique on aa or focal_blur,
altough the average technique also depends somewhat on samples, or number
of averaged textures, wich needs to be high to get smooth results (wich is
almost as slow as a high quality aa or focal_blur).
> Using focal blur for smoothing will not work in the focal plane, you will
> always get a grainy appearance there.
Yes, your right. But as I don't plan to use these "micronormals" alone,
but with other bigger normals and upper dirty layers, grain is not really a
big deal.
> BTW, did you use the default normal accuracy or a different value?
Variance 0, of course... :)
I'was just playing a bit more yesterday, and tried a "mixed" technique,
using both concepts, "micronormals" and averaged textures. Here is attached
the result, a bit more grain-free and not so slow (needs fewer
blur_samples). I used 95% quality on the jpeg to not add much more grain to
the image.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'micronormals-4.jpg' (59 KB)
Preview of image 'micronormals-4.jpg'
![micronormals-4.jpg](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C3d623ecc%40news.povray.org%3E/micronormals-4.jpg?preview=1)
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |