 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jan Walzer wrote:
>
> "_Light_Beam_" <fac### [at] aol com> wrote:
>> So ! what is, for most power-user, the best antialiasing setting for the
> ^^^^^^^^^^--considering this...
>> final render ? I'm still searching for a good method to render the final
>> image of most of my scenes... (good antialiasing without blur...?!)
>
> .. you can use: +A0.0 +AM2 +J0.78 +R9 ....
This causes about 262'000 samples to be taken for each pixel...
--
objects.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Objects Collection
book.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Book Project
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
_Light_Beam_ wrote:
>
> So ! what is, for most power-user, the best antialiasing setting for the
> final render ?
I like this:
Render at 300% resolution +am1 +a0.1 +r5 +j20
and bicubic resample to final size.
Warp's test scene rendered 3.5 times faster + 5 seconds
in spent Photoshop. http://luxlab.com/tmp/aa_3x.jpg
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> _Light_Beam_ wrote:
>>
>> So ! what is, for most power-user, the best antialiasing setting for the
>> final render ?
>
> I like this:
>
> Render at 300% resolution +am1 +a0.1 +r5 +j20
> and bicubic resample to final size.
>
Can you try this scene?:
camera{
location<0,0,-20>
look_at 0
angle 40
}
sphere{0,5
pigment{
gradient y
pigment_map{
[0 rgb 0.5]
[0.5 rgb .5]
[0.5 rgb 1]
[1 rgb 1]
}
scale .05
translate -10}
rotate z*-33
finish{ambient 1 diffuse 0}
--
objects.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Objects Collection
book.povworld.org - The POV-Ray Book Project
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3caa15d1@news.povray.org...
> Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> > .. you can use: +A0.0 +AM2 +J0.78 +R9 ....
>
> And wait a year for the image to finish?
> I think +r4 should be enough.
probably not enough, if dealing with 16Bit/Chan images ...
... but: Yes, R9 is probably overkill ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
>> I think +r4 should be enough.
> probably not enough, if dealing with 16Bit/Chan images ...
I don't understand how the color depth would have any influence in the
need to shoot more rays.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >> I think +r4 should be enough.
> > probably not enough, if dealing with 16Bit/Chan images ...
> I don't understand how the color depth would have any influence in the
> need to shoot more rays.
really ?
If you use +r4 there will be shoot 256 (+AM2) samples per pixel (at max) ...
... this will mean, that this very pixel has a granted accuracy of 1/256 (in
the worst case) ...
... probably enough for a 8Bit/Channel image, as you can't store any more ...
however, in a 16Bit/Channel image, you may want to have the accuracy of at
least 16Bit...
.. this means, however, that you'll need (for the worst case), to shoot 65535
Samples per pixel...
... and this means, you'll need +R8 ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
