 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:47:45 +0200, "Jerome M. Berger"
<ber### [at] iname com> wrote:
> Actually, if you tell it to use only one or two samples
>with method 3, it will take three and work from there...
I don't recall reading this in the docs so you must be speaking from
your knowledge of the source. This means your words are true :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 11:47:45 +0200, "Jerome M. Berger"
> <ber### [at] inamecom> wrote:
>
> > Actually, if you tell it to use only one or two samples
> >with method 3, it will take three and work from there...
>
> I don't recall reading this in the docs so you must be speaking from
> your knowledge of the source. This means your words are true :)
>
It's not in the doc and I am speaking from my knowledge of
the source :) OTOH I haven't looked at it for some time so I
may not rember right (I'm not sure whether it takes at least
3 samples or at least 2, I think it's 3 but...)
Jerome
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 17:44:24 +0200, "Jerome M. Berger"
<ber### [at] inamecom> wrote:
> It's not in the doc and I am speaking from my knowledge of
>the source :) OTOH I haven't looked at it for some time so I
>may not rember right (I'm not sure whether it takes at least
>3 samples or at least 2, I think it's 3 but...)
I would vote for two. My arguments? Well, I've noticed that this
behaviour when I was making an orb with a turbulated spherical density
and pretty cranked up AA settings. When setting the samples to 1
(initially) it looked like, well, crap. Now, if three samples were
used (and only one interval as was the case), then the first and last
would be at the edges of the container object and the second would
fall somewhere in the midst of it. With spherical density this would
result in a great difference between the samples and anti-aliasing
would kick in. This was not the case. OTOH, if only two were used then
they would be situated near the edges of the container object and in
the general case would hit a density of 0 (we don't want out media to
go beyond our container, do we?) and anti-aliasing would not play its
part. So I would vote for two.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> So I would vote for two.
>
Well, I just checked and the answer is three: one at each
end and one in the middle to determine if supersampling is
needed...
Jerome
--
* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 11:58:07 +0200, "Jerome M. Berger"
<ber### [at] inamecom> wrote:
> Well, I just checked and the answer is three: one at each
>end and one in the middle to determine if supersampling is
>needed...
Odd indeed... why does a simple spherical media look like s**t with
samples set to 1 then?
Hold on, that was in MP 0.5, and Nathan does mention something about
fixing a bug related to samples being equal to 1. I'll have to play
with it and see.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] usanet
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
