|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <3AA291F9.3E734EF6@gmx.de>, Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> That's one of the things i was going to check, but i did not yet have time
> to do so. Anyway right now there are only non adaptive blurring methods
> implemented and therefore it is quite slow when using a lot of samples.
>
> I already started to write a recursive algorithm only taking additional
> samples if the values differ, but i did not yet finish it.
I had done a pattern blurring patch before, but got stuck trying to
figure out a good way to get smooth blurring without a huge number of
samples. I don't know how suitable it is for isosurfaces, there are
still areas with infinite gradient. I think I can figure out a way to
get smooth blurring, though...
My patch worked differently, it was a pattern modifier, like the
waveform modifiers. I never thought of implementing it as another
pattern...seems like a good idea, especially in the case of block
patterns, which wouldn't be block patterns any more after being blurred.
I would suggest a different keyword, though..."blur_pattern", for
example.
One question: why do you still have the "grad" pattern, which should be
possible with the "warp_pattern" pattern?
Also, I would suggest that "visibility" be a separate pattern...it
doesn't seem to fit in with the object pattern, and would be better off
not being a block pattern. Incorporating distance would be a useful
feature.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] mac com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tag povray org, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |