"Stephen McAvoy" <McA### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:dggflvsliimbvn4lias2e1d7887vgv0hvt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:14:43 +0200, Folkert van Heusden
<fol### [at] vanheusdencom>
> wrote:
> >
> >I've put an example online at:
> >http://keetweej.vanheusden.com/~folkert/scene.png
> >
> Well I rendered your files on my XP m/c and they are ok not like above. If
that
> is any comfort. I almost recognise the problem and I am sure if one of the
> texture experts looks at them they will spot it, Sorry.

Looks like it could be light_source(s) at exact position of surface(s).
Could be simple precision errors. I noticed this was being done via a
command line form of POV so that might be bug-fixed since its release. Just
a guess.

Although, I also rendered it now and found no similar appearance, no
speckling. My first thought when seeing the image was 'crand' in a finish
statement, and yet this is obviously not the case. That leaves coincident
surfaces or lights. That doesn't seem to be happening, if I'm reading the
numbers right. The fact it renders okay for me too leaves me without an easy
way to adjust wall or light positions to see what would fix the problem. I'm
wondering if that light_source at one million units could be trouble for an
earlier version of POV.

P.S. to Stephen McAvoy: I suspect I've deleted emails of yours from my AOL
mailbox during mass deletions of junk mail. I seldom use AOL except to chat
or check on special interest things there. I put two and two together when I
saw your email address here and recall a similar (same?) name in the AOL
mail. Sincere apologies if so. Just now checked InverseZ mail and had three
POV-related ones there out of 38. I really mass delete there without hardly
looking.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message