> 
> No, this is not what happens in reality. The energy arriving
> from an object when viewed through a constant space angle stays
> the same because the observed area (and energy) on the object
> increases when viewed from greater distance. The 1/r^2 attenuation
> and increase of observed area cancel each other out. The brightness
> (pixel values) of surfaces is not a function of distance.

  Yes, you are absolutely correct. But we are missing one point here.
That's for theorically perfect surfaces! We were talking about fading on
blurred reflection, and that's another thing...

  When some reflective object shows blurred reflections, it's due to the
very small irregularity of the surface, which spreads out the rays. So,
as
greater is the distance to the surface from the light source (or
object),
and less rays hit the surface, then smaller is the chance to get rays
reflected on that small irregularities towards the camera. The visible
effect is that blurred reflections seems to disapear with distance. Note
I said "seems". Because in fact the reflections of distant objects are
highly and very softly distributed along all the surface irregularities.
Isn't?

  So, I agree that a faked reflection fading will make some artistic
tasks easier to do... like the linoleum floor example.

--
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org/

Post a reply to this message