Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> But what about the speed? "normal on" is slightly *slower* than the
> original method...and I don't think tracing 3 jittered isosurface rays
> would be very fast.
> I had the impression the original method used several (7?) samples of
> the function to determine the normal(sort of like the way MegaPOV
> calculates the normals for patterns, and the way my displace warp
> works). Sampling the *difference in density* in each direction from the
> point, which is much faster than tracing rays.
> I could be completely wrong though...I haven't even looked at this code.
> 
	I believe you're right about the way the sampling works. I haven't
looked at this code either and was speaking from vague recollections of
the doc. However, the important factor here is that it works by sampling
rather than accurate computation and therefore might be able to do
better in cases where accurate computation is impossible (such as the
"cells" function used by Greg).


-- 

* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde...                  * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************

Post a reply to this message