 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(POV-Ray 3.5 Beta 11)
5.2.6.1 Quality Settings:
"Quality=n Set quality value to n (0 <= n <= 11)
[...]
8 Compute reflected, refracted, and transmitted rays.
9 Compute media and radiosity
10
11"
Since +Q10 and +Q11 are no longer valid, it should be changed to "0 <= n <=
9", and "10" and "11" should be removed (or "9, 10, 11 Compute media and
radiosity").
5.2.6.4 Anti-Aliasing Options:
After "Example of how the recursive super-sampling works":
"This is different from the adaptive, non-recursive method were the total
number of super-samples is specified."
Should be changed to "method, where the".
The table below says that with +AM1 and +R2 four samples are taken, with +R4
16 samples are taken etc.
But as I could see in the messages when using +A0.0 +AM1 and +R2/4/6/8,
always one more sample is taken (5, 17, 37, 65).
Perhaps that is because a ray in the middle of the pixel is shooten, but why
shouldn't it be written in the documentation (or at least made clear that
these are *additional* samples)?
Felix Wiemann
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Felix Wiemann" <Fel### [at] gmx net> wrote in message
news:3c6929b3$1@news.povray.org...
> The table below says that with +AM1 and +R2 four samples are taken, with
+R4
> 16 samples are taken etc.
> But as I could see in the messages when using +A0.0 +AM1 and +R2/4/6/8,
> always one more sample is taken (5, 17, 37, 65).
> Perhaps that is because a ray in the middle of the pixel is shooten, but
why
> shouldn't it be written in the documentation (or at least made clear that
> these are *additional* samples)?
>
> Felix Wiemann
My guess would be, that the 5 are the original ray, plus the four
super-samples. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My guess would be, that the 5 are the original ray, plus the four
> super-samples. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though :)
>
> ...Chambers
I tried to express that :-) :
"Perhaps that is because a ray in the middle of the pixel is shooten,
but why shouldn't it be written in the documentation (or at least made
clear that these are *additional* samples)?"
As I said, IMO it would be good to make that clear in the doc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
