> most computer-generated images are rendered as an average of point samples weighted according to estimated coverage of a square pixel
This may be true in terms of the sheer amount of GPU rasterized imagery.
I wrote the pixel filtering code currently used in one of the major production-quality film renderers. I can tell you that it uses the classical approach of treating pixels as point samples. Notionally, it convolves irregularly placed camera samples with a reconstruction filter to create a continuous function which is then point sampled uniformly along the half-integer grid to produce the rendered image.
Regarding the squarish pixels on the shown screen, I like to view them as just an analog convolution of those discrete samples so that the photoreceptors in our eyes can resample them.
You don’t have an email address in your HN profile. Is there one folks trying to contact you should prefer (before I hunt around the internet looking for one)?
This may be true in terms of the sheer amount of GPU rasterized imagery.
I wrote the pixel filtering code currently used in one of the major production-quality film renderers. I can tell you that it uses the classical approach of treating pixels as point samples. Notionally, it convolves irregularly placed camera samples with a reconstruction filter to create a continuous function which is then point sampled uniformly along the half-integer grid to produce the rendered image.
Regarding the squarish pixels on the shown screen, I like to view them as just an analog convolution of those discrete samples so that the photoreceptors in our eyes can resample them.