

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> > For POV, light attenuation uses the function a=2/(1+(d/FD)^FP) [3.4.7.9] for
> > light sources. However for materials, the light attenuation function is
> > similar: a=1/(1+(d/FD)^FP), but it also allows you to implement a realistic
> > exponential function: a=exp(d/FD) by setting FP=>1000. My general question, is
> > why has this more realistic function (generally following Lambert Law of
> > Absorption) not been implemented for light sources as well? By playing with the
> > FD& FP values, a close approximation can be found for some range (the best
> > seems to be by using FP=exp(1)=2.72) however it is limited to a specific range
> > and not the whole distance (e.g an absolute deviation of ~+/0.006 exists only
> > from a relative distance of about 1.74 on, for a pecentage deviation it is even
> > more limited, for a +/10% deviation from ~1.51 to ~3.67)
> >
> > tgq
> >
> >
>
> For materials, the atenuation is the result of the interaction of the
> light with the material. Atenuation is caused by absorbtion.
>
> For the light's atenuation over a distance, you need to use the inverse
> square rule to get realistic atenuation, and absolutely need to use
> fade_power 2. It's the spreading of the light's energy that causes the
> atenuation.
> There is NO absorbtion in this case. As there is no absorbtion, any
> formula based on absorbtion would be totaly unrealistic.
>
> The terms are the same, but the physical reality modeled is not.
>
>
>
> Alain
I understand the use of the inverse square for light fading. I suppose I was
thinking of using the exp function for absorption, however genrally in air this
effect would be minimal.
However, I am not fully convinced the light fading model being used is correct.
For inverse square, I would think the genral function would be:
a= FD/(x^2)
There is a difference between this function and the one used: at x=1, the
functions are equal, however as x increases, the function used overcalculates
the value (eg, x=1.3 +25%, x=2.0 +60%, x=inf +100%). Below x=1, the function
undercalculates the value (eg, x=0.7 34%, x=0.5 60%).
However the inverse square function does have its problems. As it is an invers
function, it increases greatly as x decreases toward 0, to infinity at x=0.
This does make sense to some degree as we are basically calculating the flux
(lumens/area) and at x=0, the area is 0 (L/0 = inf).
I have posted a graphic in p.b.i to illustrate the differences. Perhaps
generally the differences in a scene may seem subtle, but there may be
circumstances (eg, my Matinee scene) where it can make a difference. The light
fading of the projector 'looks' ok, as we don't have any reference, but in
reality, the decay should occur quicker. One way to get closer I suppose, is to
use a higher fade power in the formula (oddly, using exp(1) for the power gives
a reasonable balance between x=1 and x=4 with a variance from +12% to 28%),
however it is still not technically correct (perhaps that just bothers me as a
perfectionist...)
tgq
Post a reply to this message

