Am 20.03.2017 um 15:53 schrieb muyu:
> "muyu" <lsy### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> from [povray.general]
>> Am 20.03.2017 um 11:38 schrieb muyu:
>>
>>> Thanks. 1) Regarding my simulations, around 50% of the light is reflected in
>>> near-infrared. So physically the expected error should be much less than 1%.
>>> This should be neglible?
...
>> You mentioned reflection above; did you also account for the transmitted
>> light?
...
>> finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0.4957 0.4409}}

That's 0.9366 in total, which means that at each radiosity recursion
step, 93.66% of the light is /not/ absorbed.

Which means that after 20 recursion steps, 26.98% of the light is
/still/ not absorbed.

>> disc {<9.5780,-10.5050,0.6040>, <0.7070,0.1830,0.6840>, 0.0500
>> texture {leaf_text}}
>> .....
>>
>> diffuse 0.4957 is front diffuse, 0.4409 is the transmitted light? Should I set
>> rgbt or rgbf?

Don't use `rgbt` nor `rgbf`, unless your similated leaves are supposed
to transmit a portion of the light unscattered.

> The reflectance of each pixel was calculated relative to the reference panel
> with the same light source and camera setup
> // the reference panel--------------------------------------------------------
> plane { <0,0,1>, 0
>         texture{ pigment{color rgb<0, 1, 0>}
>                  finish {ambient 0 diffuse 1.0 0.0 conserve_energy}
>                } // end of texture
>       } // end of plane
> 
> Reflectance = (Simulation/Reference)^2.2

Are you using File_Gamma=2.2, or why is that exponent in there?

Post a reply to this message