Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> I did a test without aa and there are more artefacts in the non-aa
> rendering.

I see what you mean. The artifacts were definitely lessened by aa, but they were
lessened much more by increasing the sampling :)

> > mm_per_unit = 80 (the model is about 1 unit high)
> > samples 1000, 100 (only way I could get rid of bright point artifacts)
> > subsurface { 5*colour, 0.5*(1-colour) } (IIRC!)
>
> So your model is about 80 mm (3 inches) why pick that value?
> This is something I'm having difficulty getting my head around. :-(

Well, I was basically just tweaking until it looked good. I don't really
understand what the subsurface:mm_per_unit ratio means, although the
scattering:absorption ratio of the subsurface values seems more intuitive (not
dissimilar to media).

I think the mm_per_unit value kind of makes sense - most everyday experience
with translucent stone objects is small statues/knick-knacks. For larger items
(metres and larger), I would expect the translucency to be much more subtle, or
even invisible, due to the greater path lengths.

I think word-of-god elucidation is required :)

Post a reply to this message