> No, but to get full use of the method 3, you shouldn't set the same
> number for min samples and max samples. The whole point of method 3 is
> that it starts with min samples and adds more where they are needed.

I know, just in recent attempts I've noticed that I had to set min-samples
quiet high to get good results, probably because I'm using pretty extreme
settings for my media. I'm not sure how method 3 figures if it should raise
the samples, but I guess that extreme details and small-scale densities
aren't easy to handle for such an algorithm. So, along with the mentioned
artifacts, I've turned to method 2, as I have a more definite idea of what
I'm doing when I'm changing values. Hence this thread, I want to get some
more knowledge of it and figure how to do things different to achieve better
effects.

> You might also want to take a look at MegaPov 0.7 and the
> sample_spacing keyword. It causes the media to be sampled more in
> parts of the render where the ray travels a longer way through the
> media. In your scene, that means that more samples will get taken near
> the horizon (where I assume the banding will be harder to get rid of).

MegaPOV... I've only used it once to get a look at isosurfaces before 3.5
came out, aside of that, I like to stick to the official version.

Tim

-- 
"Tim Nikias v2.0"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message