In article <406d8f00$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Ross Litscher" <rli### [at] everestkcnet> wrote:

> A height field would probably be a better choice for someone first
> experimenting with either. Though it has an extra step of rendering a height
> field and then using the resulting image in your final render, it is still
> generally faster. Also, if you want to move to an isosurface for quality
> reasons later on, can't you just use the pigments used to generate the
> height field as a function for your isosurface when the time comes?

You do not need to generate a separate image first, you can have POV-Ray 
generate a function image at parse time. However, you will then have to 
deal with the height field artifacts. Neither one is really any simpler. 
Either generate a separate image or specify a height function and use a 
height field, or specify a height function or some more complex function 
and use an isosurface. The height field will be a bit faster, the 
isosurface will use much less memory and look better, besides being more 
versatile in the shapes it can produce.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message