|
 |
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
>> By using a positive light and a negative light at the same position
>> where the fade distance of the negative light is slightly inside the
>> positive one, and where both have very high fade powers, we can 'see'
>> what non-shadowed surfaces are at a certain distance from the light
>> source position.
>
> Hi Bill,
> That's a very cool idea! :)
> Just to raise the bar a bit - is there any way that you can think of to simulate
> an interference pattern? Is there a way to [de facto] define a pattern for the
> light_source such that one can [faux]cancel the other?
> Off the top of my head, I'd say that it would have to be standard light source,
> and a distance function-based pigment like Christoph suggested coupled with a
> sin function...
>
> But: Couldn't you just enclose the entire scene into a union, and use an onion
> pattern?
>
> Define a color map with a narrow band of white, and the rest is rgbt 1, and then
> scale it to highlight the desired distance.
>
> I suppose you could also define a color map for the onion pattern going from 0
> to 1, and then scaling it to the maximum desired radius. The color value at any
> point would then be the distance from wherever you translated the center of the
> onion pattern to.
>
> At the moment, I think the only way to indirectly find the total ray path length
> is the formula method suggested by Christoph, but that's only for direct
> lighting. The ray path length for a light reflected from a mirror that hits an
> object and then travels to the camera (ok, it's the reverse of that for
> raytracing...) I think might presently be a challenging task.
>
> Let me know if any of this has merit, or I'm in error.
>
It's impossible to apply any pattern to the light. The only ways to
spatially modulate the light is with light fading or by using spotlight,
cylindrical or projected_through.
You may try using negative fade_distance or negative fade_power... I've
never tried that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
