"Marc Champagne" <marcch.AT.videoSPAMNOTtron.DOT.ca.invalid> wrote in
message news:Xns### [at] 204213191226...
>
> I did one too, but I didn't use media.

Could've fooled me. And the more I look at it, I can't imagine that is only
light shining on a background surface or something.

Back to the artifact problem... I sure had narrowed the thing down enough to
convince myself it was due to reflection, having forgotten I used that only
after I posted my image showing it didn't have the spotlight lines crossing
through the prism. Now that doesn't seem the answer either.

I finally got my test scene back to the original one, close enough that the
artifact disappeared, but it seemed to be because I used 'media 50,1' in the
global settings photons. And also without reflection. Yet, that was proving
to be the wrong assumption too. When I changed the spotlight radius to 2
instead of 1 it went away, so I figured it must be something about the very
small radius or at least both that and falloff being nearly as small.

Well, a lot of trial and error later, I'm still a bit mystified. It could be
mostly the spacing value changes I've used. At this point I couldn't be
sure. It's like theirs a sweet spot among all the parameters, which is about
as good an answer I can give about it. One thing is certain, and that'd be
to say variations really wreak havoc on the way the resulting media+photons
appears. In turn, this all means it probably isn't a program bug if one way
of rendering is okay. I suppose not, anyhow.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message