 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=once+in+a+blue+moon
And of course don't forget
http://google.com/search?q=the+answer+to+life,+the+universe+and+everything
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] TOBEREMOVEDgmail com> wrote in message
news:4935a069@news.povray.org...
>
>
http://www.google.no/search?q=speed+of+light+times+square+root+of+%28permittivity+of+free+space+times+permeability+of+free+space%29
> http://tinyurl.com/5etcgr
>
Someone posted here, once, quite a while back, an absolutly massive google
calculator query that involved the permeability and permittivity of free
space, plus a whole bunch more things and gave teh answer in something
absurd, like nautical miles per half hour. I recall the query taking several
lines.
Does any one else remember? Does anyone perhaps still have that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=once+in+a+blue+moon
>
> And of course don't forget
> http://google.com/search?q=the+answer+to+life,+the+universe+and+everything
And some more:
http://www.google.no/search?q=great+gross+fathoms+in+number+of+horns+on+a+unicorn+foot
http://www.google.no/search?q=two+nautical+miles+per+quarter+year+in+furlongs+per+fortnight
http://www.google.no/search?q=two+great+gross+chains+in+bakers+dozen+hands
http://www.google.no/search?q=avogadros+number+half+torr+in+pounds+per+square+parsec
http://www.google.no/search?q=cubic+light+years+in+imperial+dessert+spoons
http://www.google.no/search?q=e+pennyweights+per+american+cup+in+carat+per+hogshead
http://www.google.no/search?q=pi+astronomical+units+per+quarter+barrel+in+cubits+per+firkin
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It can do math with complex numbers too:
http://www.google.no/search?q=e%5E%28i*pi%29%2B1
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> (Isn't this what the "metallic" keyword in POV-ray does too?)
>
> Actually the "metallic" keyword affects surface hilights only.
There are two 'metallic' keywords - one for highlights, and one for
specular reflection.
> Which leads to another question: Do surface hilights really exist? Or
> are they just reflections of the shape of the light source?
Yes, and yes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> (Isn't this what the "metallic" keyword in POV-ray does too?)
>>
>> Actually the "metallic" keyword affects surface hilights only.
>
> There are two 'metallic' keywords - one for highlights, and one for
> specular reflection.
...there are?? o_O
>> Which leads to another question: Do surface hilights really exist? Or
>> are they just reflections of the shape of the light source?
>
> Yes, and yes.
Hmm. I see. I think...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> (Isn't this what the "metallic" keyword in POV-ray does too?)
>>>
>>> Actually the "metallic" keyword affects surface hilights only.
>>
>> There are two 'metallic' keywords - one for highlights, and one for
>> specular reflection.
>
> ...there are?? o_O
Metallic in a finish block relates to highlights, metallic in a
reflection block relates to specular (mirror) reflection. It's in the docs!
Watchit, this is getting dangerously off-off-topic!
>>> Which leads to another question: Do surface hilights really exist? Or
>>> are they just reflections of the shape of the light source?
>>
>> Yes, and yes.
>
> Hmm. I see. I think...
They're very blurred reflections of very bright objects - you see
highlights of anything bright. More unbiased renderers like indigo etc
don't actually use highlights, you get them for free with the lighting
model.
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Metallic in a finish block relates to highlights, metallic in a
> reflection block relates to specular (mirror) reflection. It's in the docs!
How interesting... I never knew that!
> Watchit, this is getting dangerously off-off-topic!
:-P
>>>> Which leads to another question: Do surface hilights really exist?
>>>> Or are they just reflections of the shape of the light source?
>>>
>>> Yes, and yes.
>>
>> Hmm. I see. I think...
>
> They're very blurred reflections of very bright objects - you see
> highlights of anything bright. More unbiased renderers like indigo etc
> don't actually use highlights, you get them for free with the lighting
> model.
Wait - I just said "are they just reflections of the light source".
So are they or aren't they?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Wait - I just said "are they just reflections of the light source".
>
> So are they or aren't they?
In POV-Ray, they are just reflections of the light source. In real life,
you see highlights for any relatively bright object, because any
relatively bright object behaves like a light source.
I see highlights on my tea mug that correspond to the TV, several lights
and the bit of paper next to it on the coffee table. On closer
inspection, they're all just regular reflections, and everything else in
the room is insufficiently bright to show up.
If I'm just being confusing, you should menace me with your best baby
panda impression... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Wait - I just said "are they just reflections of the light source".
>
> So are they or aren't they?
>
They are, sort of. In the real world, highlights would be caused by very
fine irregularities on the surface. which will invariably reflect some
of the light from the light source to your eye. What you see, then is a
diffused reflection of the object's surroundings. Some of which may
actually be a light source.
Highlights as POV-Ray defines them is a sort of short cut. Depending on
rougness, or highlight size, depends on the angles at which the
highlight can be seen. It's a mathematical shortcut to simulate a
(slightly) rough surface without needing to use such things as
micronormals, or shooting thousands of rays from each point of the
surface. Instead they use a simple formula to get what they need.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
