On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 02:30 -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On 10/31/06, Ted Gould <ted@...11...> wrote:
What I'm curious about is the edges. If you look at the attached PNG what you get is transparent edges, which really isn't what the gradient specified. I think that the edges have to be backed up with another object... the question is what.
See my other mail - we just need to pad the edge segments so they extend beyond the clip by at least the blur radius. I just tested it and it works fine, no more transparency at the edges.
Okay, makes sense.
Another consideration: the size of the fragment must adjust automatically by taking the _smallest_ cell in the mesh and subdividing it into a user-settable number of fragments. Then, larger cells should use the same fragment _size_, not the same number of subdivisions. This is because we have one single blur radius for the whole object, and that blur cannot be bigger than the smallest fragment size.
Instead of a user settable amount of subdivisions shouldn't it be a user settable amount of error? I'm just thinking that simple meshes would look good with fewer subdivisions (the majority of cases) but users may want to set the default division higher to handle all cases. It would be a shame to over-subdivide, at that point we're basically rasterizing...
--Ted