Mael wrote:
> 
> > Very clever.
> 
> ehhm, to be honest this is really not rocket science and the patch is ~ 50
> lines of C

Well, then it's even better...

> > It could be worth
> > considering some caching function but that will probably be less helpful
> > than with diffuse radiosity since the result varies much stronger with
> > position and surface normal.
> 
> I've not tried but i'm pretty sure caching is useless considering, as you
> noted, the strong effect of normal and incident ray direction. A way to make
> it faster would be to find another brdf which don't require a pow() call for
> the distribution as it is quite cpu expensive [...]

Is this based on actual measures?  I would assume the calculation of the
sampling directions is negligible on terms of computation time in
comparison to the actual shooting of rays.  Isn't it possible to calculate
the sampling directions and their weights in advance anyway?

> 
> > How does it look with very low sample counts? Does it look mostly noisy or
> > are there other artefacts?
> 
> in the current implementation the position of samples is fixed so low sample
> counts may give artifacts. I think adding a random rotation of the samples
> would result in noise.

I think it would be interesting to test.  One problem about blurred
reflection is that low sample counts tend to generate noise that makes the
result look very ugly.  Some 'slight' artefacts could be preferable in
some situations.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 28 Feb. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message