texture rendering without filtering 2004-06-03 - By kim aldis
Back
That I couln't be sure about without running some tests. It's not something
I do a lot of, although I was working with someone a year or so ago who was
doing camera projections for set replacement and he had a hell of a job
trying to get it right. My guess is that there'd need to be some kind of
filtering because the textured image could get pulled around in all sorts of
ways, stretched or compressed according to camera, object distortion,
scaling, whatever. The question really is, does it filter where it doesn't
really need to.
The comment was no more, really, than an observation in the interests of
completeness. I have a thing about accuracy and it seemed to me that it was
possible to infer that threshold played a part when in fact it didn't.
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: owner-xsi@(protected)
> [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf Of Andras Ikladi
> Sent: 03 June 2004 12:36
> To: XSI@(protected)
> Subject: Re: texture rendering without filtering
>
> kim aldis wrote:
>
> >If the min and max settings are identical, the threshold setting is
> >irrelevant. You can leave it wherever.
> >
> >
> >
> Does it really ensure the texture won't be blurred?
> Generally rendering engines also use a different texture
> sampling mechanism, not related the the main image sampling.
> Ok, that you don't switch on elliptical filtering or
> mipmapping, but still color calculation for a given ray hit
> will be an averaged sample of 4 surrounding texels. (and in
> the average case, it is good cause helps to avoid texture aliasing)
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
|
