Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> I personally don't like the way I'm using the 'density' keyword to specify
> photon density.  Usually, when you say density, you want to give a
> items-per-area(or volume) value, not a length value.  So... what would be a
> better keyword?  Would 'spacing' be good? (since you are giving the spacing
> between photons)  I do not want to switch the value to a real density, because
> right now photon 'density' and gather 'radius' are directly related (linearly),
> making it easy to test with a low number of photons and switch to a large
> number with predictable results (my 'phd' variable, for those who've looked at
> my source).
> 
> So... is 'spacing' good?  Any other ideas?
> 
> -Nathan

 Spacing has an unlikable quality that is hard to pin down but it doesn't
sound right to me.  Take your pick of intensity, quantity, spread, proportion,
measure, lumens, wattage, BTU's, lux, or candle power. I would have to get
out my physics books to dig up any more related terms.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message