William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> samples 33
That seemed to be sufficient to rectify the issue. Can't say that sample 65
looks significantly better...
> or perhaps more (with stronger AA tend to need less). The second value
> is not used with method 3. The aa_level (recursion limit) and
> aa_threshold stop method 3.
Even at this "late" stage, I do not have an adequate grasp of antialiasing
settings, so maybe that will be a future area of concentration for me to
investigate, or someone else to post some explanation with illustrative code.
> ---- Details... Suspicions... on my look at it more later list.
Look at all that there stuff under the hood of POV-Ray that you just emptied out
of your head... :O
> - When emission was added, a second absorption value spec should have
> been added specifically for it's contribution. Having one value for both
> scattering and emission sometimes just won't work out - and it's harder
> to use even when you can make it work.
Good catch, and that is probably something that needs to be ironed out, or at
least in the short term provided with a little formulaic workaround to tweak the
values accordingly. Something like the gradient formula for isosurfaces or some
of the lighting formulas in the docs, if that's at all possible.
> ...There is more, and somewhere I have notes. But! I'm going to worry
> about it all some other day and go grab more coffee. :-)
aye, I should probably take more notes. Though I already get razzed about the
number of piles of paper with cryptic scribblings... ;)
Thanks for the info as always :)
Post a reply to this message