On 1/11/24 17:22, William F Pokorny wrote:
> I'll ponder & perhaps play with your idea in code.

Well, I'm surprised. Your idea works well for somewhat complicated 
reasons(a) over just setting the threshold to 0.0 in method 1 - where we 
need to force more samples(b). Thanks for the prompt!

(a) - My guess is we might be a little more exposed to left top 
directional artifacts on using min depth.

(b) - In scenes where we were almost always sub-sampling already the use 
of +rm is slightly slower because we sometimes force sampling where the 
threshold alone wouldn't have / didn't need to.

Attached more or less equivalent images (less random jitter) both using 
method 1. Th difference image shown on the right. The left column image 
is using:

yuqkB hmmAA.pov +w400 +h400 +d +p +am1 +a0.035 +rm4 +r6 +j1.33

and the samples / pixel come in at: 19.05

The middle column image is using:

yuqkB hmmAA.pov +w400 +h400 +d +p +am1 +a0.0 +r6 +j1.33

and the samples / pixel come in at: 33.80

I'm a little tired to finish off the commit and documentation tonight. I 
plan to tackle it tomorrow - extending the AA min depth option to method 
1 as well.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'meth1_rm4_r6.jpg' (77 KB)

Preview of image 'meth1_rm4_r6.jpg'