Hm. So the actual difference lies in the samples on the
final trace. If always_sample would really kill samples on
the final trace, then there'd be no difference, and the whole
two-pass issue would be possible with one-pass.

But we've already seen that always_sample doesn't prevent
samples from being taken 100% of the time.

Then there's only one final thing to check: when using the
two-pass method, where the first pass is done on, like,
80x60 image, and the second on 640x480, how big are
the difference in rendering/pretracing times? Cause if the
final trace is done on much lower resolution, there should
be less possibilities for new samples, as well as an increase
in rendering times. Perhaps this should also be tried with
much more extreme resolutions, like 40x30 compared to
1280x960.
And, of course, how is the quality then?

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


> > So, question still remains why there are so much less samples?
>
> the difference (between 6655 and 20714 samples ) is due to the final trace
> full resolution at error_bound 0.1
>
> I've re-done my first test, but this time with an abort of the render at
the
> end of pretrace and then compared the .rca (temporary radiosity save for
> +C). This time, for both methods (2-pass and low_factor_error), the file
> size is almost the same
>
> 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