> Am 21.11.2013 00:03, schrieb Tim Cook:
>> On 2013-11-18 09:36, clipka wrote:
>>> I know that you love that trick, and have in some tutorial made claims
>>> that it is a sufficient replacement for inbuilt blurred reflections, but
>>> the above facts make it no more than a nasty kludge. One that can be
>>> used to good effect if you invest sufficient time and effort, but a
>>> kludge nonetheless.
>>
>> Micronormals (which is how real-world blurred reflections happen, afaik)
>> are a kludge?  I'd think the inbuilt blurred reflection would be moreso,
>> as it's a corner-cutting technique to save time and computational
>> resources...  ;)
>
> Indeed, but the inbuilt ones are not /nasty/ :-P (because they're much
> easier to use).
>
> That said, the most kludgy thing ot the "current trick" (in terms of
> realism, not in terms of ease of use as I originally meant) is not so
> much that it uses micronormals in the first place, but that it averages
> multiple micronormals textures to achieve the oversampling required.
> Real-world blurred reflections normally don't do /that/ ;-).
>
I totaly agree, but your eyes /do/ average several "samples" as the 
actual micronormals are so small that each retina receptors actualy 
"see" many at once...

Post a reply to this message