POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : radiosity vs. double_illuminate Server Time
31 Jul 2024 12:19:49 EDT (-0400)
  radiosity vs. double_illuminate (Message 1 to 10 of 42)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Jan Dvorak
Subject: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 05:49:34
Message: <4736de3e$1@news.povray.org>
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:

default{finish{ambient 0}}
camera{location <3,4,5> look_at 0}
polygon{5,x,y,-x,-y,x pigment{rgb 1}double_illuminate translate  z}
polygon{5,x,y,-x,-y,x pigment{rgb 1}double_illuminate translate -z}
background{rgb z}
global_settings{radiosity{}}
sphere{-y/2,0.5 texture{pigment{rgb y}finish{ambient 10 diffuse 0}}}
light_source{y/2,rgb x}

Is it a bug or it is intentional?


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:30:01
Message: <web.47373ba9c65e62dc47c4e9b20@news.povray.org>
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.


Post a reply to this message

From: "Jérôme M. Berger"
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:56:16
Message: <47374240$1@news.povray.org>
-----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

From: Alain
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 13:38:10
Message: <47374c12@news.povray.org>
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

From: Jan Dvorak
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:33:20
Message: <47375900$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: Jan Dvorak
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:36:19
Message: <473759b3$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:10:00
Message: <web.473760b9c65e62dc47c4e9b20@news.povray.org>
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

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:15:00
Message: <web.473761aec65e62dc47c4e9b20@news.povray.org>
=?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

From: Jan Dvorak
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:22:03
Message: <4737646b$1@news.povray.org>
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

From: "Jérôme M. Berger"
Subject: Re: radiosity vs. double_illuminate
Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:34:58
Message: <47376772$1@news.povray.org>
-----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

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.