Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
> Thanks Christoph. I much appreciate your comments as I feel that I still 
> have a lot to learn about this matter. Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but I 
> find this a difficult matter to understand, despite the excellent tutorials, 
> by the way, of you and others.
> Let's see if I get this correctly.
> Concerning error_bound, what I should do is (for instance):
> error_bound 0.5 //first pass
> error_bound {0.5 adaptive 1.5, 20} //second pass
> OK? The quality of the results might then dictate using 0.5 or lower (or 
> higher, to see where acceptable boundaries are).

Yes, you should notice however that the interaction between those 
settings can be quite complicated and especially error_bound (which is 
relevant both when taking and when reusing samples) can have quite 
unexpected effects.  So it is possible that what you used has some 
positive effect in some situations.  It would be a pretty advanced 
experiment however. :-)

> My initial assumption was that by making error_bound adaptive (at least in 
> the final pass) megapov would determine automatically what the necessary 
> values were, thus gaining time and quality.

Error_bound is a user quality setting - there is no way for POV-Ray to 
determine it automatically.  What the adaptation does is modifying the 
error_bound to avoid taking additional samples.  But as said the 
interactions with other settings are complicated so the influences on 
the render results can be as well.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 20 Aug. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message