|
 |
I've updated my webpage,
the indoor-scene is now ready to be watched.
I made it fullsize this time to see the artifacts
more clearly. The size of all images for scene 3
is about 3 MB.
I don't know if this scene is sufficient to
compare certain artifacts, if you have suggestions
for other scenes or have comments on this one
i would like to hear them !
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Thies Heidecke wrote:
> I've updated my webpage,
> the indoor-scene is now ready to be watched.
> I made it fullsize this time to see the artifacts
> more clearly. The size of all images for scene 3
> is about 3 MB.
>
> I don't know if this scene is sufficient to
> compare certain artifacts, if you have suggestions
> for other scenes or have comments on this one
> i would like to hear them !
It looks quite good. Note however that for a 'good looking' results it
is less relevant how correct the results really are (i.e. how strong the
difference to the precise solution is) and more important if there are
clear artefacts. While in general your sample set seems to lead to less
differences the artefacts at low counts are significant. Have you
tested it in combination with the random rotation ('randomize on')? How
about the internal low discrepancy (halton) distribution?
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmx de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ch9bij$2tl$1@chho.imagico.de...
> It looks quite good.
Thanks!
> Note however that for a 'good looking' results it is less relevant how
> correct the results really are (i.e. how strong the difference to the
> precise solution is) and more important if there are clear artefacts.
Yes, in general i agree with you, artefacts should be avoided, even if
it's not looking optimal from a mathematical point of view, since our
perception isn't mathematical either. But i think it's also important
to get an early impression of the final look without having to use
high count-values.
I also think that in most cases avoiding artefacts and good lighting
don't have to contradict each other.
> While in general your sample set seems to lead to less
> differences the artefacts at low counts are significant.
hm, i don't know exactly which images/artefacts you mean.
I think they aren't more significant than the builtin-samples-artefacts
except for the bright white stripes, which i think are pure luck/badluck.
They could have been in the internal set, too.
> Have you tested it in combination with the random rotation
> ('randomize on')? How about the internal low discrepancy
> (halton) distribution?
That's a good idea, i totally missed that!
I tested a bit with the random rotation and it looks nice.
It makes for a totally different look, nice.
I've made a few tests with the halton-sequence, too. I think
it lies somewhere between the internal set and the golden section set.
I also experimented with jittered versions of the sunflower-set
but there are too many possible combinations =)
Seriously, perhaps i'll make another webpage to compare the various
possibilities, but probably not as detailed as the other 3 scenes, but
just a few images for each comparison.
> Christoph
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
