Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   Well, I still don't know why a smaller phong_size increases the highlight
> size but a smaller roughness decreases it, but that doesn't bother me. I just
> use it with the trial-and-error-method.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

  I think the term density is misleading and your examples illustrate
why. If I want to increase the density of photons why wouldn't I make
the density number larger instead of smaller. The reason is because I
want to decrease the distance between each photon to increase their
spatial density. By specifying how far the photons are "spread" out
from each other better illustrates conceptually why decreasing the
spread distance between them increases the overall density of of the
photon pattern.

  I haven't read the description for phong highlights in so long I can
offer no insight into that seeming ambiguity. I understand why reducing
the roughness of a surface would increase the tightness of specular
highlights, it would diffuse the light less, but the phong function I
haven't read about in so long and have forgotten since back when I was
using Pov v2.2.
  I seldom use phong in my images anyway preferring the tighter highlights
of the specular function. Probably comes from having worked in a metal
finishing industry for too many years and I expect surfaces finishes to
be nice and bright without large dull spots in the finish. They are after
all cause for reject and that is more paperwork for me to hassle with.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message