"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3D7### [at] gmxde...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
[snip of Gil's intervention]

> It was just a first test mainly showing two things:
> - increasing quality locally by increasing count is possible.
> - there is a drawback because of increased calculation time because of the
> function evaluations.
> The bright sports are cased by really low count in that area (i tried to
> bring down the calculation time). The Door does not look good because the
> function does not take account of it.

I don't have all the technical background to help you with technical
criticism but I can forsee the interest of your studies.
About the drawback, for a complex scene it mustn't be that important since
your function could help POV-ray "focuses" on the areas that need lots of
treatment. If that function can be optimized to gain time in its treatment
is a question that I leave to you since I cannot unfortunately help you :-(

Suggestion (if you already thought about it, sorry :-))
Would it be possible to use a something like empties to pinpoint the place
we think wil require more work?
An empty is an object used in almost all modellers that present all
qualities of an object except that it doesn't appear at render time.
The POVdude could put those in the scene according to what he sees in the
test rendering that way for the final rendering your function will
automatically knows where to work.
I suppose that there must be a box attribute in POV that allow to define a
zone that will be treated (I'm reading in parrallel the POVdoc so forgive me
if I'm nuking some open doors). Each empty could be given a zone that it
represent and the function will work on those zones by pointing to the
empties.

Well I don't know if it makes sens but I hope that's something that could
help you by giving you a glimpse at the solution or a warning sign about the
direction not to follow ^___^

Jean-luc who has lost 800 000 neurones during that exercise -__-

Post a reply to this message