I think this may be relevant:
I once saw a web page a few years ago ( I can't find it now ) where an
Imagine user faked radiosity by adding tiny amount of small-scale noisy-bump
and minimal reflection to everything in the scene. He then rendered it at
double the intended resolution without AA (for speed reasons). After
resizing the image in a paint program (AA done here), the effect was very
much like radiosity with lightening in the shadowed areas and nominal color
bleed.

I haven't tried it, but I bet it would work the same in PoV. If this is sort
of what you're talking about then, it wouldn't work on perfectly smooth
surfaces, and iso's and photons, while not hurting anything, might be
overkill.


bat### [at] cadronhsacom



Nekar Xenos wrote in message <3aba0ecd@news.povray.org>...
>Ok, let's use some examples on the radiosity sample that comes with Povray
:
>
>A) Rendered with the best known settings for radiosity.
>
>B) Use isosurfaces or heightfields to make the roughness of real world
>texture, such as wall paint, etc. Use photon packs for lighting and no
>radiosity.
>
>Which should look more real?
>
>Nekar
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
news:3abab191$1@news.povray.org...
> I think this may be relevant:
> I once saw a web page a few years ago ( I can't find it now ) where an
> Imagine user faked radiosity by adding tiny amount of small-scale
noisy-bump
> and minimal reflection to everything in the scene. He then rendered it at
> double the intended resolution without AA (for speed reasons). After
> resizing the image in a paint program (AA done here), the effect was very
> much like radiosity with lightening in the shadowed areas and nominal
color
> bleed.

This is exactly what I had in mind. In my mind tho', this is not fake, but
what radiosity should be.

> I haven't tried it, but I bet it would work the same in PoV. If this is
sort
> of what you're talking about then, it wouldn't work on perfectly smooth
> surfaces, and iso's and photons, while not hurting anything, might be
> overkill.

If a surface is perfectly smooth it would be reflective so radiosity
shoulkdn't have any effect anyway. Why wouldn't isosurfaces and photons
work?  I haven't studied them yet, but I'm very keen to(so little time and
so much to do)...

Nekar

Post a reply to this message

I am saying they probably 'will' work. But why waste the extra CPU cycles to
use iso's when perturbed normals are likely just as effective?
(Given the size of the microfacets). I really can't say about the photons
though. Like you, I haven't really studied them yet. :)


bat### [at] cadronhsacom


Nekar Xenos wrote in message <3abaec19@news.povray.org>...
>
>"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
. . .and iso's and photons, while not hurting anything, might be
>> overkill.
>
>If a surface is perfectly smooth it would be reflective so radiosity
>shoulkdn't have any effect anyway. Why wouldn't isosurfaces and photons
>work?  I haven't studied them yet, but I'm very keen to(so little time and
>so much to do)...
>
>Nekar
>
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3ab9f02f@news.povray.org>, "Nekar Xenos" 
<vir### [at] iconcoza> wrote:

> If I understand it correctly, the purpose of radiosity is to 
> compensate for light scattered by rough surfaces. Normals, as I 
> understand don't do this right without radiosity which is why you 
> need to add radiosity.
> Therefore if you were to use isosurfaces or heightfields to make rough
> textures with a relatively low reflection level and a high maximum 
> iteration
> level, you wouldn't need to add radiosity.

I've experimented with something similar using blurred reflection. You 
don't need isosurfaces or blurred reflection, normals would work fine, 
but you will need hefty antialiasing settings. And it will be 
excruciatingly slow...
The reason radiosity exists as a separate feature is that it can be much 
faster and smoother that way, as well as easier to use. There are many 
optimizations that can be done with radiosity calculations but not 
blurred reflection calculations.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

You're right about normals. I had this thing against normals because they
look flat when viewed from the side. But seeing it's  so small it doesn't
matter. I actually think photons might even work better or maybe you won't
see any difference any way...

Nekar

"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
news:3abb3a6c$1@news.povray.org...
> I am saying they probably 'will' work. But why waste the extra CPU cycles
to
> use iso's when perturbed normals are likely just as effective?
> (Given the size of the microfacets). I really can't say about the photons
> though. Like you, I haven't really studied them yet. :)
>
> BatronyxT ^"^
> bat### [at] cadronhsacom
>
>
> Nekar Xenos wrote in message <3abaec19@news.povray.org>...
> >
> >"Batronyx" <bat### [at] cadronhsacom> wrote in message
> . . .and iso's and photons, while not hurting anything, might be
> >> overkill.
> >
> >If a surface is perfectly smooth it would be reflective so radiosity
> >shoulkdn't have any effect anyway. Why wouldn't isosurfaces and photons
> >work?  I haven't studied them yet, but I'm very keen to(so little time
and
> >so much to do)...
> >
> >Nekar
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message