|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <3AA3D4E2.A405A713@gmx.de>, Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> but that probably could lead to strange results when the cube structure
> interferes with the pattern.
When the blur distance is larger than the size of the cubes, it doesn't
blend to a 50-50 mixture of the colors, but gives a bunch of fuzzy
squares that are larger than the actual pattern. I'm planning a type 3
that will supersample the voxels before interpolating, which will give
better results. This will be a true blurring, not the "subsample and
interpolate" method 2 uses. Also, when I let it use higher resolution
voxel maps, this won't be a problem.
BTW, method 0 also has this problem...it gives some pretty odd results
when the distance between samples is larger than the distance between
cubes. I haven't checked method 1, but it should have this aliasing
problem as well.
--
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) |