On 01.12.2017 15:17, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.12.2017 um 20:42 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
>> The images still look nice. Sad only, that I self have no understanding
>> of media, I wished I could help here. Sounds like you should propose a
>> new feature inside the BETA section of this newsgroup, or expanding
>> existing features to make it possible to increase the density further.
> 
> The issue isn't so much whether it is /possible/ to increase the
> density, but rather whether doing so gives /realistic results/.
> 
> The problem is that the scattering media model is designed for cases
> where the media's density is non-uniform, but low enough that the single
> scattering contribution is dominant (i.e. a typical light ray will be
> deflected from its initial direction at most once), and the multiple
> scattering contribution (i.e. light that is deflected from its initial
> direction more than once) is negligible.
> 
> Compare this to the subsurface light transport model, which is
> specifically designed for cases where the density is pretty much
> uniform, but high enough that the multiple scattering contribution is
> dominant.
> 
> 
> To extend the scattering media model in such a manner that it gives
> reasonably realistic results for high-density media, a monte-carlo-ish
> rendering approach would have to be used, where secondary rays would be
> shot here and there along the light's path (even recursively). Expect
> noisy results and/or high rendering times.
> 
> This is in fact on my wishlist, but other stuff takes priority.
> 

Thank you for this insight.

I think, looking to the list of persons actively involved in the
developing, POV-Ray needs again some more promotion. It is such a
unique, great, possibilities-loaded render engine, it deserves to be
connected to all school and university students. I think, we really need
many more developers who are into POV-Ray rendering. But that is just my
personal opinion.

---

http://www.avg.com

Post a reply to this message