On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:37:21 -0700, Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>Wouldn't it make sense to use something more geometric than a random
>jitter? Or does that cause artifacts or something? (Of course, you would
>then need at least, I dunno, four or five samples to get reasonable
>results, but you'd need at least that many anyway...)

Well, mathematically I don't see that there'd be much difference in the
two methods, since the underlying normal is itself likely to be somewhat
random.  Adaptive jitter might lead to a more ordered approach, though.
This morning I finished rendering a "real" test image, an anisotropic 
blurred transmission test.  At 512x384, with 33 samples per intersection
(but two surfaces to the box, so really 1089 samples per pixel, it took
just under 12 hours to render on my P200 but the results were beautiful.

In other news, I thought of a way to get true blurred reflection without
a custom patch; it just requires one little bugfix in 3.5 and a seriously
layered texture.

-- 
#local R=<7084844682857967,0787982,826975826580>;#macro L(P)concat(#while(P)chr(
mod(P,100)),#local P=P/100;#end"")#end background{rgb 1}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.y)0,0
translate<-.8,0,-1>}text{ttf L(R.x)L(R.z)0,0translate<-1.6,-.75,-1>}sphere{z/9e3
4/26/2001finish{reflection 1}}//ron.parker@povray.org My opinions, nobody else's

Post a reply to this message