On the a.a. tip.
Did anynoe ever use the ctrl-studio sel aliasing shader?
It's supposed to enable per object anti-aliasing control.
Adam.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of kim aldis
> Sent: 21 November 2007 11:11
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: RE: quick antialiasing question
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On
> > Behalf Of Chris Marshall
> > Sent: 21 November 2007 09:29
> > To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> > Subject: Re: quick antialiasing question
> >
> > again!) you didn't have to set anti-aliasing, it was just
> on, and we
> > never had problems with dodgy edges. I wonder how they did that?
> > There we are, thanks again,
> > Chris
> >
> >
>
> [kim:-]
>
> Different anti-aliasing methods. Pretty much all ray tracers
> use averaged multiple samples to get the quality you need and
> as far as I'm aware it's the only way. Even the old Softimage
> renderer used a sampling method - it had fewer settings but
> that meant it was trading ease against tune-ability, not that
> it was just easier. When you got buzzing there you simply
> switched to Bartlet - no adaptive sampling - and watched your
> render times go through the roof (same issues as we're
> discussing here).
>
> One of the neatest anti-aliasing methods I ever saw was Loren
> Carpenter's A-buffer rendering algorithm which worked by
> clipping polygons into fragments at pixel edges using a
> lookup table to work out how much the fragment contributed to
> the final pixel colour. Things like transparency dropped out
> nicely and you could Boolean objects really easily in the
> renderer. It didn't suffer from the sample-missing-lines
> thing described earlier, anti-aliased beautifully and was
> fast as hell. But it doesn't allow for ray tracing. We added
> ray tracing and it fell through the floor. No kidding, frame
> times went from 20 minutes up to 20 hours. (The rasterizer
> isn't a ray tracer, by the way). But that was a fine renderer.
>
> There's a good discussion of the relative merits of mental
> ray and Renderman by a chap from ILM that nicely outlines the
> relative advantages of ray tracers and non-ray tracers in a
> reasonably sensible way.
>
> But really, this discussion should be about bringing other
> renderers to XSI.
> Mental ray is a good solid renderer but like all renderers
> it's not good at everything. Being able to chose a renderer
> for the job in hand is the real answer.
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2 - Release Date: 20/11/2007 00:00
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
