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-10/000897_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Mon Oct 16 10:20:12 1995.msg

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

Received: by mail.webcom.com
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA037134012; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:20:12 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from netcom21.netcom.com by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA037044003; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:20:03 -0700
Received: by netcom21.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
    id KAA09793; Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:11:48 -0700
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Gross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AC, Joe, and Manny: Thanks RE: Rendering
To: Robert Cohen <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lightwave Post <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9510161033.A8848-0100000@netcom21>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

>
> I remember hearing that in one of the Stranahan tapes also, but the fact
> of the matter is, whenever I use field rendering, I experience nearly
> twice the rendering time.  So... my question is, how do you employ field
> rendering without adding substantially to the rendering times ??

Have you done tests where all you change is Field Rendering and it
doubles your time? If so, that doesn't seem right. I'm getting my info
straight from Allen, but will check into it further...

JG
--
John Gross <[e-mail]> sent this message.
To Post a Message           : [e-mail]
Un/Subscription Requests To : [e-mail]
(DIGEST)                 or : [e-mail]
Administrative Items To     : [e-mail]