"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ch9bij$2tl$1@chho.imagico.de...
> It looks quite good.
Thanks!

> Note however that for a 'good looking' results it is less relevant how
> correct the results really are (i.e. how strong the difference to the
> precise solution is) and more important if there are clear artefacts.
Yes, in general i agree with you, artefacts should be avoided, even if
it's not looking optimal from a mathematical point of view, since our
perception isn't mathematical either. But i think it's also important
to get an early impression of the final look without having to use
high count-values.
I also think that in most cases avoiding artefacts and good lighting
don't have to contradict each other.

> While in general your sample set seems to lead to less
> differences the artefacts at low counts are significant.
hm, i don't know exactly which images/artefacts you mean.
I think they aren't more significant than the builtin-samples-artefacts
except for the bright white stripes, which i think are pure luck/badluck.
They could have been in the internal set, too.

> Have you tested it in combination with the random rotation
> ('randomize on')?  How about the internal low discrepancy
> (halton) distribution?
That's a good idea, i totally missed that!
I tested a bit with the random rotation and it looks nice.
It makes for a totally different look, nice.
I've made a few tests with the halton-sequence, too. I think
it lies somewhere between the internal set and the golden section set.
I also experimented with jittered versions of the sunflower-set
but there are too many possible combinations =)
Seriously, perhaps i'll make another webpage to compare the various
possibilities, but probably not as detailed as the other 3 scenes, but
just a few images for each comparison.

> Christoph
Thies

Post a reply to this message