What you're seeing makes sense to me, that the quality of rendering relies more on ambient calculation parameters when the calculation is 100% diffuse/ambient light, without a direct light source.
You also seem to be moving the parameters in the direction of higher accuracy and longer rendering time so shouldn't be detracting from validity.
As for reading materials, I'm sure lots of people could make suggestions. The book Rendering with Radiance is likely a top suggestion. Also, here's a presentation that I recently re-discovered from a past annual workshop:
Actually you could browse all the past workshop presentations for relevant materials, although I'm not sure how easy it will be to judge them by the titles.
https://www.radiance-online.org/community/workshops
Regards,
Chris
ยทยทยท
-----Original Message-----
From: Dion Moult [mailto:[email protected]]
In order to get the leaves actually rendering and to get the shadows of the leaves less splotchy, I've had to increase -ps to 1 and -ar to 2048. My full options are -ab 2 -ad 4096 -ar 2048 -ps 1. Is this the right approach?
I feel guilty that I am adjusting these parameters to get a more "believable"
image without fully understanding it -- I might compromise the validity of the simulation (although yes, the material in this test is nonsense, of course).
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for viruses and acceptability of content