"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It's a reference for a more accurate lighting model, to what it'd look like in
> the real world.  But then again, we already know in the real world lighting
> doesn't come through closed corners... :P

Yup.

And when the light leaks have been stopped successfully, finding out what the
proper color is for "that particular shadow over there" boils down to the
questions what the real world physical properties of "this particular material
over here" and "this particular light source" are supposed to be.

Which is difficult to tell if the material definitions in a scene contain faked
highlights and such, and the light sources are modeled without proper
inverse-of-squared-distance attenuation.


I might use MC-Pov, however, to continue work on my almost-closed-door scene. So
far, it's the most promising renderer for it - if not the only one that has any
chance of coming close to what I'm aiming at.


BTW, I think one of the things to pay attention to in a next-generation POV
version (i.e. 4.0) is to use lighting-model-independent descriptions of
material properties, which each lighting model must then try to map to its own
parameters as best as it can. Parameters that are specific to a certain
lighting model, such as the "ambient" for the "classic" POV lighting, should go
in a separate lighting-model-specific "hint" section (in this particular case I
think it shouldn't be a material-specific property anyway, but an
object-specific one, because it's actually a substitute for indirect diffuse
illumination, which in reality depends on geometry).

Post a reply to this message