clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'd expect AA - instead of increasing samples - to give a benefit
> nonetheless, as it avoids increasing the number of samples shot in areas
> where everything is smooth as a baby's behind.

I was a bit more scientific about it yesterday, and it seems aa is more helpful
than I thought - I had some reflection in the texture before that was confusing
the issue.

> (I personally favor focal blur over AA though, as I think the
> confidence/variance approach is superior the AA's mechanism.)

Agreed!

> The "mm_per_unit" ratio specifies - not surprisingly - how many mm are
> in a POV-Ray unit.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough, I meant the ratio of "mm_per_unit" to the
magnitude of the subsurface values. But your other comments make it much clearer
what's going on, I hadn't realised the subsurface coefficients were mm-1.
(should have read the reference paper!)

> If you feel like multiplying "mm_per_unit" by some value just to make
> your material look right, instead divide the coefficients by that value.

Right.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Post a reply to this message