On 03/04/2012 02:56 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 7:32 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> OK then ... I suppose it means that it's something I'm doing and NOT an
>> anomaly. LOL ... back to the drawing board. Maybe it's the backside
>> diffuse I'm using, at any rate thanks for helping eliminate one of the
>> possibilities.
>
> It was a very small area light, 4x4.
> I'll post another test later, when it is finished, where I had to change
> the samples from 100 to 1000 when changing between RC3 to RC4.
>
> BTW have you tried translucency = <0,0,0> end or 0.0001?
>
nope ... interesting idea. i've had better luck going in the other 
direction (larger values), but hey i'm still poking at this, so all 
ideas are good ones at this point ;-)

Post a reply to this message