On 02/03/2011 11:59 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> I did a test without aa and there are more artefacts in the non-aa
>> rendering.
>
> I see what you mean. The artifacts were definitely lessened by aa, but they were
> lessened much more by increasing the sampling :)
>

OK, that saves me some experimenting.

>
> Well, I was basically just tweaking until it looked good. I don't really
> understand what the subsurface:mm_per_unit ratio means, although the
> scattering:absorption ratio of the subsurface values seems more intuitive (not
> dissimilar to media).
>

I agree that the subsurface values seems more intuitive.

> I think the mm_per_unit value kind of makes sense - most everyday experience
> with translucent stone objects is small statues/knick-knacks. For larger items
> (metres and larger), I would expect the translucency to be much more subtle, or
> even invisible, due to the greater path lengths.
>
> I think word-of-god elucidation is required :)
>
>
I think that I'll wait until RC4, where the syntax will change, before 
playing any more.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message