home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Light ROM 4
/
Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso
/
text
/
maillist
/
1995
/
1095.doc
/
001660_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Mon Oct 30 20:13:57 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-11-07
|
2KB
Received: by mail.webcom.com
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA224872837; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 20:13:57 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com>
Received: from mv.mv.com by mail.webcom.com with ESMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA224812832; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 20:13:52 -0800
Received: (daemon@localhost) by mv.mv.com (8.6.10/mv(b)/mem-940616) id XAA07227 for lightwave@webcom.com; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 23:07:06 -0500
Received: by fusion.mv.com (V1.16/Amiga)
id AA00ii8; Mon, 30 Oct 95 22:48:03 EST
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 22:48:03 EST
Message-Id: <9510310348.AA00ii7@fusion.mv.com>
Message-Id: <21891720.71ef5-mark@fusion.mv.com>
In-Reply-To: <199510301803.OAA23059@Fox.NSTN.Ca>
(from "Chris Purdie" <topher@fox.nstn.ca>)
(at Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:11:18 -0800)
X-Mailer: //\\miga Electronic Mail (AmiElm 4.159)
From: mark@fusion.MV.COM (Mark Thompson)
To: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Subject: Re: Refraction?
Sender: owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
> Does the Refractive Index value entered itself have any effect on
> rendering times? I mean, I know it takes longer then no refraction, but
> does a setting of 1.5 render faster then a setting of 2.0?
Yes, but not significantly.
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
* Mark Thompson (603) 424-1829 *
* Fusion Films, Inc. mark@fusion.mv.com *
* Director of Animation and Special FX *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
mark@fusion.MV.COM (Mark Thompson) sent this message.
To Post a Message : lightwave@webcom.com
Un/Subscription Requests To : lightwave-request@webcom.com
(DIGEST) or : lightwave-digest-request@webcom.com
Administrative Items To : owner-lightwave@webcom.com