Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>    Well, here I must admit that I thought I knew what I was doing... ;) What
> I wanted was to take first the high error_bound samples, to avoid the
> problem of radiosity coming trough the joints... but perhaps it works
> equally the other way: I must try it.

If you're talking about that light leaking though walls and the like, that's
actually the high error_bound samples, not the low ones.

If you're talking about light leaking through at the hinge side of the door,
that may even be physically correct.


> > - The artifacts you see in the 16b image are not due to the quality of
> > the radiosity samples used for that shot, but due to the moment they were
> > taken: What we see are the results of final-trace sampling, with the new
> > samples affecting their surroundings only in successive rows.
>
>    I think I didn't fully understand this explanation... sorry (not your
> fault). But the 16b was done apart in one pass, without loading any radiosity...

I'll try again, just the basics:

One of the main source of artifacts are radiosity samples which are taken during
the final render. The artifacts seen in the 16b sample look exactly like that
type.

(I'll not go into detail *why* they look that way ;) it's simply a side effect
of final-render-sampling that cannot be avoided)

This happens when the pretrace steps didn't generate enough samples.

If the same samples would be available at the start of the final render already,
you would not get any such artifacts.

They are available *after* that final render, and this is the moment when
radiosity data saving is done. So if you render the whole smash all over again,
this time loading the samples from the previous run, you don't get a different
set of samples - but you get a much better render.


>    Now, if someone is interested, I had the strange idea that a
> fade_distance  for reflections will help making blurred reflections with
> averaged normals... but I'm unable to test on my head if it will work.

Now it's me who understands just half of what you're saying :)

Post a reply to this message