Am 25.01.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Mike Horvath:
> On 1/25/2016 4:28 AM, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>> Here's a 'complete' scene including your scattering media (with a
>> camera and a
>> light-- having a LIGHT is important for seeing this media type) plus a
>> HOLLOW
>> container object for the media to be enclosed in. (A simple sphere
>> here.) At
>> least you'll see *something* now! ;-)
> 
> I should have clarified. I can *see* the media, it is either the right
> color but too dense if I set the scattering to <0.2,0.4,1.0>, or it is
> properly dense but too dark. There seems to be no way to set the density
> independently of the color.

The question to be examined here is this:

Is the media not to your liking because it differs from the original
image, or because you think it looks wrong?

Your original image may have been generated by a version of POV-Ray that
got the maths wrong, for instance because it didn't use proper gamma
handling or because of certain bugs that have been eliminated by now.

If you use "assumed_gamma 1" in the global settings, and "extinction 1"
in the scattering media declaration, then the results will be physically
accurate under the given lighting conditions and for a medium that is
purely scattering. There is no additional tweakable -- nor is there any
physical justification for one -- that you could use to mess with the
brightness.

Unless the medium is supposed to be partially absorbing (in which case
you could model this by setting the "extinction" parameter to a value
>1, or explicitly adding an absorbing component to the media statement)
or glowing (which you could model by setting the "extinction" parameter
to a value <1, or explicitly adding an emitting component).

So if you want realism, you should stick to the current settings. If on
the other hand you want a certain effect and screw realism, you are free
to mess with the "extinction" parameter to brighten up the haze.

Post a reply to this message