"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > On 10/15/19 10:26 AM, jr wrote:
> > ...
> > I believe there are two issues in your approach. I think +am3 is able to
> > help with the coincident surfaces type, but not the 'things got so
> > small' they are sitting between our camera rays(a) type.
> >
> > (a) - Hmm, you might get some improvement too by moving to larger
> > renders for this reason. Ray spacing is relative to the scene is smaller
> > the larger the render.
>
> will give this a try too, later (Wednesdays usually busy with RL).
> the current render outputs 256x256, will check whether doubling makes a visual
> difference.
> > >> (1) - And perhaps help more with more aggressive options (more than +am3).

I added 'double_illumination' to both of objects in the intersection ("slice"),
as per BE's suggestion, and a transparent 'interior_texture' to the box, and
found that helped some.  I then doubled the resolution of the render (to
512x512), and tried "better" values for antialias_{confidence,depth,threshold},
again, small improvements.  I've posted an animation of it in p.b.misc, same
subject.  as can be seen, Bill P's advice re the near parallel (to camera) rays
was v accurate -- unfortunately.  I want to avoid going down the multi-pass
approach suggested, given that, in the end, the colour would still be
"generated" by eval_pigment.  so I'll use the rig as is now, and accept that
I'll have to drop resolution in some instances or avoid some shape(s)
altogether, and will have a look at the camera (cf BE Lohmueller tip) when I
find the .. energy.  meanwhile new ideas/insights would be appreciated.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message