The paragraph was a chronological account of when techniques were introduced with accompanying citations. The 1998 paper in the preceding sentence would lead the reader to believe that low discrepancy sampling came after the robust sampling methods (and potentially even that low discrepancy sampling was a new technique). Both have had further work that continues to this day, and both are much more complex and well-understood today.
> desperate to be dismissive
How is clarifying what I was commenting on "desperate"? I feel like you're trying to escalate here.
whoa, calm down. The post makes it sound like low-discrepancy sampling is a recent development, and 'rbkillea is pointing out that it is 30 years old.
That's it, no need to attribute malice anywhere. I think you are reading way too much into 'rbkillea's comments.
There is nothing about low discrepancy sampling being a recent development. This article is about recent research and suggesting anyone involved would imply that one of the most trivial aspects of rendering is somehow new is total nonsense.
There is a recent paper about generalizing n-rooks sampling to higher dimensions which seems to have been misunderstood by yourself and others. It was written by researchers who already have dozens of high profile papers on many different topics.
I understand you know what low discrepancy samples are, but equating the very first demonstration that random sampling wasn't ideal for day tracing, to the state of the art that has evolved over three decades of research is ludicrous.
I don't know why you are desperate to be dismissive but it has no basis whatsoever in reality.