On 11/12/22 09:19, And wrote:
> I have just tried interpolation, when using 'closest(no interpolation)', or
> 'linear', or any other option it introduce an artifact line. The seams is narrow
> but sharp when using 'closest', a little wider when using interpolation(my
> example image using 'linear').
>> - What happens if you generate your map image with a higher resolution
>> mesh than that to which you map in the actual render? It might be too,
>> higher resolution image maps (denser mesh camera), help.
>> - Have you tried rendering at different output resolutions to see how
>> any seams might change? (Rendering large and shrinking a help?)
> When I generate a 2048x2048 (higher resolution texture image) then applied,
> compared to the 1024x1024(first one of this thread), its artifact seams looks
> smaller but still exist.
Thanks for the info. On the 2x scale up; I'm wondering if we might not
get better results still with a non-integer multiple in size for the map
image - say 1.7x or 2.5x.
Are you always using AA for these test renders? If so/when, which
method? (In v3.7/v3.8 there is in method 1 some bias down and to the
You're using a version of UberPOV. I remembered on rolling out of bed
this morning that at some point after v3.7, Christoph corrected a long
standing ~half pixel offset in how the AA ray sampling was getting done
(I think just for method 2, but my memory is fuzzy). There was initially
a bug in this fix causing issues with AA results in general which
persisted for 2-3 months of releases. I have no idea where your release
of UberPOV falls relative to this AA work and the later fix for the bug
introduced with the initial fix.
Aside: My povr branch supports method 2 AA with 'big jitter (>1.0)' and
jitter which is again random (v3.6 and prior like). With it one can
sample in a 'non-shrinking to grid way' with controllable bleed in
sampling into adjacent pixels. This 'big jitter' feature likely can help
hide the seam artifact (as with artifacts in general).
The existing v3.7/v3.8 fixed/repeatable jitter method has some
unfortunate bias issues making it different, but often no better, than
no jitter at all. Details exist in a post somewhere on the newsgroups.
Anyhow, if using AA, have you tried running with and without jitter on?
Post a reply to this message