-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

	I'd say that of the two single-path images, this one is better (the
other is too grainy), but I don't really see a difference with the
traditional algorithm. Since it takes about the same time to render
this doesn't show any advantage of the alternative method. Do you have
an example that renders faster with the single-path while keeping a
similar (or better) quality than the traditional?

		Jerome

Christopher James Huff wrote:
| Here's the single-path method, with random choices determined for each
| trace level for the entire image per-pass, with 64 samples and
taking 4m
| 11.16s to render:
|

- --
******************************
*      Jerome M. Berger      *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrancecom *
*  http://jeberger.free.fr/  *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAd5ZNqIYJdJhyixIRArN9AKCQ5UhmO23MJqRYDeM+K9iEHsP6WwCfXGjK
5hISF+lmHHNLkjs9yLpD+cs=
=oNhP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message