from [povray.general]
Am 20.03.2017 um 11:38 schrieb muyu:

> Thanks. 1) Regarding my simulations, around 50% of the light is reflected in
> near-infrared. So physically the expected error should be much less than 1%.
> This should be neglible?

> 2) However, I found almost 10%  under-estimates compared with the reference
> using Monte Carlo method. What's the possible reasons for this? Should I
> increase the brightness or the light intensity?

No ideas at the moment. Maybe if you posted the resulting images, the
distribution of light within the canopy might give a hint.

You mentioned reflection above; did you also account for the transmitted
light?

Here it is the setting of the radiosity:
#version 3.7;
global_settings {
   assumed_gamma 1.0
   ambient_light 0.0
   adc_bailout 0.0
   max_trace_level 20

   radiosity {
      count 1500
      error_bound 0.01
      recursion_limit 20
      nearest_count 10
   }
}

// light--------------------------------------------------------------
light_source{<0,36.397,100> color rgb<0,1,0> parallel}

// ground ------------------------------------------------------------
plane { <0,0,1>, 0
        texture{ pigment{color rgb<0, 1, 0>}
                 finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0.1590 0.0000}
               } // end of texture
      } // end of plane

// leaves----------------------------------------------
#declare leaf_text = texture {
pigment {color rgb<0.0,1.0,0.0>}
finish {ambient 0 diffuse 0.4957 0.4409}}
disc {<9.5780,-10.5050,0.6040>, <0.7070,0.1830,0.6840>, 0.0500
texture {leaf_text}}
.....

diffuse 0.4957 is front diffuse, 0.4409 is the transmitted light? Should I set
rgbt or rgbf?

Is this the right way to consider the multi-scattering using Radiosity? I have
the impression that some processes are missing?

Thax in advance.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'canopy_2_camera.png' (651 KB)

Preview of image 'canopy_2_camera.png'