"waggy" <hon### [at] handbasketorg> wrote:
> Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> > Anyway, I find it dificult to aprehend the reason why, in this case, you
> > may need to use variable ior.
> >
> I'll take a stab in the dark (matter) and guess gravitational lensing.
>
> On a somewhat related note, I'm starting to wonder why scattering media seems to
> be the go-to media for visualizing fields.  I've had good luck applying the much
> less intensive emission media for this purpose to get a good look at some fairly
> gnarly fractal-generating functions.


Below is how I did the contours of functions that I was mapping.  I found that
if you can map a function to a volume of digital 1-255 values and create a
density file, you can then show the isopotential surfaces of the function in
question.

Matlab has problems doing this, but povray worked perfectly.  I wonder if we
could do the same thing with 3d stereoscopic rendering?

Is there a 3d glasses version of povray?

-----------------------------------------


emission <1,1,1> / 210
      density {
         density_file df3 "tsqrt07j.df3"
         interpolate 1
        color_map {
 [0.01 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.03 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.05 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.07 rgb <0,1,0>]
 [0.09 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.11 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.13 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.15 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.17 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.19 rgb <0,1,0>]

 [0.21 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.23 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.25 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.27 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.29 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.31 rgb <0,1,0>]
 [0.33 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.35 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.37 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.39 rgb <0,0,1>]

        [0.41 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.43 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.45 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.47 rgb <0,1,0>]
 [0.49 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.51 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.53 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.55 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.57 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.59 rgb <0,1,0>]

 [0.61 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.63 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.65 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.67 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.69 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.71 rgb <0,1,0>]
 [0.73 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.75 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.77 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.79 rgb <0,0,1>]

        [0.81 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.83 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.85 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.87 rgb <0,1,0>]
 [0.89 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.91 rgb <1,0,0>]
 [0.93 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [0.95 rgb <0,0,1>]
 [0.97 rgb <0,0,0>]
        [1.00 rgb <1,1,1>]


         }
-----------------------------------------




> Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> > Anyway, I find it dificult to aprehend the reason why, in this case, you
> > may need to use variable ior.
> >
> I'll take a stab in the dark (matter) and guess gravitational lensing.
>
Hi Alain,

2d plane IOR is fine, I was exploring the 3d volume data but my real world
expermient is based on a 2d magnetic lens (very thin layer of ferrofluild).
Dark matter and lensing would be easier.

Thank you y'all,

Michael

http://www.aps.org/about/physics-images/heleshaw.cfm

Post a reply to this message