Why didn't I think of checking that? But that explains
it all, doesn't it. Its either more data, more overhead, I
don't know. Perhaps issueing more space to store the
extra amount of samples due to low_error_factor isn't
as efficient as when POV-Ray knows right from the
beginning to use error_bound .1, and stay with that...

Doesn't really matter. But its good to know that there
is something going on, sadly, I'm no programming expert
to actually do something about it. I'm also unsure if
there's actually need or possibility to actually do so...

-- 
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights


> I've made a quick test with a scene :
>
> 1st render :
> pretrace_start 0.08
> pretrace_end 0.02
> error_bound 0.1
> low_error_factor 1
> always_sample off
> save_file "rad1.data"
>
> and 2nd render :
> pretrace_start 0.08
> pretrace_end 0.02
> error_bound 0.8
> low_error_factor .125
> always_sample off
> save_file "rad2.data"
>
> and rad1.data is 3 times bigger than rad2.data.. !
> Hmm, so there's something I don't get with low_error_factor neither :)
>
>
> As a side note here is a little trick to render radiosity scenes with the
> 2-pass approach, using animation options :
>
> // +w300 +h300 +KFF2
>
> #if (frame_number=1)
>       pretrace_start 0.08
>       pretrace_end 0.02
>       error_bound 0.2
>       save_file "rad.data"
> #else
>       pretrace_start 1
>       pretrace_end 1
>       error_bound 0.6
>       always_sample off
>       load_file "rad.data"
> #end
>
> works nicely but you can't have different antialiasing/resolution options
> for each pass
>
> M
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 14.07.2003

Post a reply to this message