it just isnt comparable to an image processing program like
photoshop, where each added filter or effect is destructive,
and potentially reduces quality.
generally speaking there is no "quality loss" in the render tree.
All calculations are in floating point. Im not sure if underneath all
of this each node you go through gets computed seperately,
or if the there is one combined computation of the whole network.
But the calulations get executed with a rather high precision (= floating
point),
without compression, with the end result being translated into a color.
(8bit or 16bit or float, depending on your output format)
You can argue this final step to reduce quality, but its not a very usefull
argument.
You need to commit and output the result at one point or another.
If you have a texture that you want to put on an object, as "clean"
(=unmodified)
as possible you can use the constant node, or plug the texture straight into
the surface input.
a phong or lambert shader are there for light calculations.
except the odd exception you wouldnt need to go through several of them.
But its bound to have an effect when you go through each one of them.
if you put a texture as the input, and then go through a shading node,
the outcome will have changed somewhat. But thats not related to quality as
such.
These nodes have their specific purpose, and you cannot argue
of them being good or not, they do what they are designed to do.
In this case modify the input color in correspondence to the light in your
scene.
And finally there is no "absolute" way of doing things in the rendertree.
If you get what you're after with or without using certain nodes, then by
all means do so.
If you show your rendertree, people can comment on wether it makes sense,
if there's redundant stuff in there, and if it could be organised
differently.
> You're still not giving much away. How many ways do you think there are of
> connecting nodes together in the rendertree. You need to take a look at
your
> tree, figure out what's going on.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> > [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Christopher
> > Sent: 28-December-2005 22:19
> > To: kim aldis
> > Subject: Re[2]: Points snap to a axis & Mental Ray
> >
> > Hello kim, well I mean the outcome seems better. What I mean
> > to say it seems mental ray the more shaders it passes though
> > the more transparent each shader becomes especially when it
> > passes thought a phong\blinn shader before hitting the material.
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> > Wednesday, December 28, 2005, 4:48:04 PM, you wrote:
> >
> > > What do you mean by 'better'.What sort of tree?
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> > >> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Christopher
> > >> Sent: 28-December-2005 21:43
> > >> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> > >> Subject: Points snap to a axis & Mental Ray
> > >>
> >
> > >> as Mental ray calculates shaders down the tree the more
> > >> shaders it passes though before it hits the material does it
> > >> "degrade" in a way. I have found if I skip (sometimes) a
> > >> phong or a lambert shader and just go straight into the
> > >> surface of the material my outcome is better!
> >
> > > ---
> > > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
> > following text in body:
> > > unsubscribe xsi
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Christopher mailto:walksfar(at)netscape.ca
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following
> > text in body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
> >
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
