-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

nemesis wrote:
> It's the same for reflection:  no light_sources, no reflection.
> 
	?? Where did you see that? There is absolutely no relation between
light sources and reflections, and you *can* still get reflections
even if there are no light sources. Are you sure you didn't mean
"photons"?

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHN0JCd0kWM4JG3k8RAhJvAKCu+pTzyQ2NLRyAznT6MAEIyhuviQCgh+dp
R6HiqKJ0HNG8Yi8MHhDnL9Q=
=1mY/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/11 12:28:
> Jan Dvorak <jan### [at] centrumcz> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>   When I use double_illuminate in a radiosity scene it does nothing (it
>> does get double_illuminated by light_sources).
>> Here's a scene to illustrate:
>>
>> Is it a bug or it is intentional?
> 
> it's not a bug!  There are no light sources in pure radiosity, so you shouldn't
> expect an object to get "doubly illuminated".  Use at least one light_source
> together with radiosity.
> 
> It's the same for reflection:  no light_sources, no reflection.
> 
> 
> 
You can always see an object with a high ambient value in a reflection without 
any light.
Not the case with photons. No light_source = no photons.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Real Time, adj.:
     Here and now, as opposed to fake time, which only occurs there
and then.

Post a reply to this message

Alain napsal(a):
> nemesis nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/11 12:28:
>> Jan Dvorak <jan### [at] centrumcz> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>   When I use double_illuminate in a radiosity scene it does nothing (it
>>> does get double_illuminated by light_sources).
>>> Here's a scene to illustrate:
>>>
>>> Is it a bug or it is intentional?
>>
>> it's not a bug!  There are no light sources in pure radiosity, so you 
>> shouldn't
>> expect an object to get "doubly illuminated".  Use at least one 
>> light_source
>> together with radiosity.
>>
>> It's the same for reflection:  no light_sources, no reflection.
>>
>>
>>
> You can always see an object with a high ambient value in a reflection 
> without any light.
> Not the case with photons. No light_source = no photons.
> 
I use a plain white background + radiosity to light the scene. Or I use 
a blue gradient and a yellowish light_source.

Post a reply to this message

I would expect the front square to be illuminated by the green sphere 
(ambient 10) in the example scene.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> You can always see an object with a high ambient value in a reflection without
> any light.

oh!  but that *is* a bug! :P

or presumibly the high ambient object is considered a light source?

Post a reply to this message

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> nemesis wrote:
> > It's the same for reflection:  no light_sources, no reflection.
> >
>  ?? Where did you see that? There is absolutely no relation between
> light sources and reflections, and you *can* still get reflections
> even if there are no light sources. Are you sure you didn't mean
> "photons"?

no, I meant reflections:  if there are no light sources, reflections *shouldn't*
be seen anywhere.  If there are no light rays, what is tracing the reflective
images?

I remember lighting some test scene with pure radiosity and reflective materials
and getting no reflections at all.  And it sounds ok to me.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis napsal(a):
> Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> You can always see an object with a high ambient value in a reflection without
>> any light.
> 
> oh!  but that *is* a bug! :P
> 
> or presumibly the high ambient object is considered a light source?
> 
Yes. And that's the only way to make a solid object shine, AFAIK.

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

nemesis wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> It's the same for reflection:  no light_sources, no reflection.
>>>
>>  ?? Where did you see that? There is absolutely no relation between
>> light sources and reflections, and you *can* still get reflections
>> even if there are no light sources. Are you sure you didn't mean
>> "photons"?
> 
> no, I meant reflections:  if there are no light sources, reflections *shouldn't*
> be seen anywhere.  If there are no light rays, what is tracing the reflective
> images?
> 
	In that case, if there are no light rays, what is tracing the
image? You should see a pure black image, which obviously you don't.

> I remember lighting some test scene with pure radiosity and reflective materials
> and getting no reflections at all.  And it sounds ok to me.
> 
	I'd be really interested to see such a scene if you could make one,
but you can't (unless you use the "no_reflection" keyword of
course). I have made some test scenes with pure ambient lighting
(neither light sources nor radiosity) and reflective materials and
the reflections showed just fine.

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFHN2dyd0kWM4JG3k8RAmCCAJj5GTkkQpTA39rdwzvMLxXtOTGRAJ4nyAkL
Ctw88J9Eu65F1dkeLI0B0g==
=zDmA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
>  I'd be really interested to see such a scene if you could make one,
> but you can't (unless you use the "no_reflection" keyword of
> course).

global_settings {

        ambient_light 0
 radiosity { brightness 1.2 }

}



union {

 plane { y, -1 pigment { rgb 1 } finish { ambient 6 } }

 sphere { -x, 1 pigment { rgb x } }

 sphere { x, 1 pigment { rgb y } finish { reflection 1 }}



 translate z*5

}


I can't see a thing.  Reflections or otherwise.

> I have made some test scenes with pure ambient lighting
> (neither light sources nor radiosity) and reflective materials and
> the reflections showed just fine.

yes, but you know ambient light is by itself faking a constant ambient lighting,
don't you?  That's the hidden light by which povray is tracing the scene.  No
lights, no reflection, nor image. nothing...

Let there be light! :)

Post a reply to this message

> I can't see a thing.  Reflections or otherwise.
> 
>> I have made some test scenes with pure ambient lighting
>> (neither light sources nor radiosity) and reflective materials and
>> the reflections showed just fine.
> 
> yes, but you know ambient light is by itself faking a constant ambient lighting,
> don't you?  That's the hidden light by which povray is tracing the scene.  No
> lights, no reflection, nor image. nothing...
> 
> Let there be light! :)
> 
> 
> 

You were talkang about light sources. Ambient light has no source.

Post a reply to this message