"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It might be different if instead of an <area light> object, you used
> > a real collection of point lights...
>
> An interesting idea. I'll do an experiment, to compare this to an area light
> (of the same number of point lights), to see just what a visual difference
> there might be on a scene's illuminated objects, as well as the shadow
> qualities produced.
>

Of course, an area light can use jitter, which would automatically make the
shadows (from the area light's discreet point lights) smoother, compared to
using a similar array of "real" point lights. The latter would simply cast a
number of separate, discreet shadows, all slightly displaced.

It would still be interesting to see the difference in the surface
illumination of an object, comparing both methods.  I.e., the area light's
single "point light" direct illumination vs. an array of real point lights.

Here's a really wacky experiment to try (though I haven't done ot yet):
Start with two copies of the same object. Use the area light to create the
shadows on one copy--but use the no_image tag for that object, so it's
invisible.  Then light the 2nd copy with the array of "real" point
lights--but use the no_shadow tag for that one. So what you end up with is
the object lit by multiple real point lights, with the shadow created by
the area light.  The best(?) of both worlds!

KW

Post a reply to this message