EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/95.lightwave-10/000735_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Thu Oct 12 23:31:04 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-11-07 | 2KB

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA047775863; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 23:31:04 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from hkg.hkg.ingr.com ([148.53.151.201]) by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA047555848; Thu, 12 Oct 1995 23:30:48 -0700
Received: by hkg.hkg.ingr.com (5.65c/1.921207)
    id AA02306; Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:24:06 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Steven Davis)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CREATINE TEXTURE MAPS in Photoshop
To: [e-mail] (Scott Burton)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 14:24:05 CDT
Cc: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9510130005.A16001-0100000@queen>; from "Scott Burton" at Oct 12, 95 10:07 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 07.00.00.00 (2.3 PL11)]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

> Actually, on this second point, I'd think opposite.  Anti-aliasing your
> stuff in PhotoShop will allow you turn off AA in Lightwave and save you
> rendering time.

Actually LW`s aliasing performs sub sampling, whereas Photoshop will only
smooth out an existing image.

Example: I recently rendered a scene where I was in a car travelling over
     a cable suspension bridge, the cables were very thin in the distance
     and it was a long bridge.

Using LW`s anti-aliasing would sub-sample the pixel, actually rendering the
image pixel more than once to finally end up with the correct pixel color,
similiar to the days when you had to render at double the image size, then
half the image in size to get an aliased version.

Because the cables where thin, with no AA, the cables would appear is some
images, and not in others, so on the animation I would get a horrible flashing
effect on the cables, LW`s aliasing helped decrease this.

If i took my images into PS to anti-alias, I would still get the flashing of
the cables, as some images would either have the cable partially showing or
not visable at all.

Conclusion:

A single image, you could get away with it, if you had NO FINE DETAIL.
If your animating.. beware.

SD.

--
[e-mail] (Steven Davis) sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]