Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> If I were to propose a rule of thumb, I would say ambient and diffuse
> should be roughly the same number, and that ambient shouldn't be included
> in the requirement that filter+transmit+reflection+diffuse+specular <= 1.

Even though, you hint on it in the next paragraph, you should point out
that this formula is only valid if you are not using radiosity.

> 
> The logic behind the first part is that ambient is just diffuse reflection
> of light with an unspecified source, so if an object diffusely reflects
> 60% of any light falling on it, it should diffusely reflect 60% of the
> ambient light.  (If this makes your scene too bright, turn down the ambient
> light in global_settings or consider using radiosity instead of ambient
> light.)
> 
> The logic behind the second part is that what an object does with light
> from unspecified sources shouldn't have any effect on what it does with
> light from a specific source.  That is, you wouldn't keep everything
> below .5 just because you have two light sources, so there's no reason
> to do so because you have ambient light.
> 
> Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure both specular and
> reflection should be in the sum either, since the purpose of specular is
> to simulate reflection for light sources.  By the same logic, specular and
> reflection should probably be fairly closely related unless you're using
> blurred reflection in MegaPOV.
> 
> --
> Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
> My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

-- 
Francois Labreque | Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a snooze
    flabreque     | button on a cat who wants breakfast.
        @         |      - Unattributed quote from rec.humor.funny
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message