Frosted glass doesn’t pass through light of objects that are simply near by it. It doesn’t make physical sense. I understand the defect, but neither does this solution correctly fix the problem.

Note the circle before it intersects with the rect, without accounting for pixels beyond the bounds, the blur is incorrect because the kernel doesn’t take into effect the circle.

Note the blur after extending the kernel beyond the visible bounds. While the blur is correct, the albedo of the shape passing through the rect no longer makes sense. The circle is not emissive, and yet despite this, you see the blur of the circle behind the rectangle without it intersecting in a full-bright environment. Why can we assume the environment is full-bright? Because there is no lighting. Only albedo.

Neither are correct.

▲

chrismorgan 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I have an inking of what you’re getting at now. I want to try modelling it with full ray tracing now (in the absence of a piece of actual frosted glass!), to convince myself if you’re right (I’m not sure one way or the other), but sadly I doubt I’ll get to it any time soon.

	▲	andrewmcwatters an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I used physical samples of pebbled glass, curved glass, and clear glass. You can get the same effect using curved glass because of how natural light bounces off of the surface of the subject object and onto the glass, but you don't get this pronounced of effect with a flat panel of glass, frosted or not. It's too exaggerated for, say, a kernel of 32px.