 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:54:52 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:
>Well, yes, but even using global ambient, the ambient of objects won't
>change as you adjust the strength of the light-sources in the image.
Well, I'm of the opinion that if the amount of ambient light you have in
your scene is that dependent on individual light sources, you should be
using radiosity.
But then, I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't have to adjust the
brightness of light sources. Am I alone in wishing there were an "exposure"
option in the camera specification?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:06:23 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>
>Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>> If I were to propose a rule of thumb, I would say ambient and diffuse
>> should be roughly the same number, and that ambient shouldn't be included
>> in the requirement that filter+transmit+reflection+diffuse+specular <= 1.
>
>Even though, you hint on it in the next paragraph, you should point out
>that this formula is only valid if you are not using radiosity.
From a purely theoretical standpoint, I fail to see why this should be
the case for objects that don't emit their own light (other than the
reflection/specular thing.) Could you elaborate?
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2001 10:56:04 -0500, Ron Parker wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:54:52 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:
>>Well, yes, but even using global ambient, the ambient of objects won't
>>change as you adjust the strength of the light-sources in the image.
>
>Well, I'm of the opinion that if the amount of ambient light you have in
>your scene is that dependent on individual light sources, you should be
>using radiosity.
And believe it or not, I'm still of that opinion despite the fact that
this machine is only a P200. But then, I don't render much these days.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povray org> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] fwicom...
> On 11 Jan 2001 10:56:04 -0500, Ron Parker wrote:
>
>But then, I don't render much these days.
On a P200 with radiosity, no one renders much these days....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:13:36 -0000, Tom Melly wrote:
>
>"Ron Parker" <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote in message
>news:slr### [at] fwicom...
>> On 11 Jan 2001 10:56:04 -0500, Ron Parker wrote:
>>
>>But then, I don't render much these days.
>
>On a P200 with radiosity, no one renders much these days....
Well, sometimes I cheat and use Julie's K6-2/400. But it runs Windows, so
it doesn't perform much better. (Just kidding, guys! Please cut me down
now!)
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just a thought:
If dust from this discussion is settled down and common ground is found,
then perhaps someone could summarize it and put it available (e.g. as
guideline for rule-of-thumb)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Just a thought:
> If dust from this discussion is settled down and common ground is found,
> then perhaps someone could summarize it and put it available (e.g. as
> guideline for rule-of-thumb)?
You will probably find that on this topic that one mans rule of thumb
is another mans big toe.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:45:50 -0800, Ken wrote:
>
>
>Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>>
>> Just a thought:
>> If dust from this discussion is settled down and common ground is found,
>> then perhaps someone could summarize it and put it available (e.g. as
>> guideline for rule-of-thumb)?
>
>You will probably find that on this topic that one mans rule of thumb
>is another mans big toe.
What he said.
The only general rule of thumb is "tweak it til it looks right in your scene."
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Vahur Krouverk" <vah### [at] aetecee> wrote in message
news:3A5DE21E.13B70413@aetec.ee...
> Just a thought:
> If dust from this discussion is settled down and common ground is found,
> then perhaps someone could summarize it and put it available (e.g. as
> guideline for rule-of-thumb)?
1. A scene with white walls needs higher ambient than a scene with black
walls.
2. Ambient and diffuse have a relationship to each other and an inverse
relationship to reflection.
3. Don't use ambient, use radiosity. With media. And isosurfaces. On a 386.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> 1. A scene with white walls needs higher ambient than a scene with black
> walls.
>
> 2. Ambient and diffuse have a relationship to each other and an inverse
> relationship to reflection.
>
> 3. Don't use ambient, use radiosity. With media. And isosurfaces. On a 386.
Guess I should downgrade my 486 in this case...
Arghh, I'm off to read "Digital Lighting & Rendering"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
