Not that it's likely to happen in POV-Ray (I may wish I didn't say that
later, noticing all the changes to POV and it's cousins over the years) it
would be pretty fantastic to see raytracing cover some of the aspects of
light in the realm of wavelength and the corresponding interactions.
Might be neat to see that ultraviolet (well, not see it exactly unless
shifting the spectrum for a fancy render) interact with something and drop
in frequency to emerge as a deep blue indigo or other fluorescent color;
just like certain mineral rocks.
Fact is, as many people must know, the potential for a vast number of
physical realities being simulated always exists given the will and a way.
That's probably the major stumbling block; I know I can't do 1% of the
things I can think of (actual percentage may vary, greatly....) otherwise
I'd be living a dream.

Bob

Remco de Korte <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote in message
news:37F27701.33A06FB4@xs4all.nl...
> Simen Kvaal wrote:
> >
> > I agree, but there is one fact that has to be made clear, and that is
that
> > many colors are "standarized".
>
> Uhm, this is way off topic again, but standardization seems to be on of
the
> major diseases of these times. Or better: not the standardization itself
but the
> false belief in it.
> This is a computer based platform: that is on of the places were you can
> experience the consequences of Standardization all the time.
>
> I believe (but are not sure) that the colors
> > in "colors.inc" is taken from the international catalog, which states
what
> > blending of frequencies to use for a specific colour. There are
standards to
> > what one should call "aquamarine", "azure" and so forth.
>
> Yes there are.
> Kodak tried to set some standards for instance.
> Of course Apple had to define some standards.
> There are probably as many colorstandards as there are, just to name a
thing,
> computerplatforms.
> Luckily you see standards converging, but you can never be sure.
> I thought Netscape's 256 color palette was more or less a standard. Who
> guarantuees that Microsoft in an attempt to beat its opponents on all
fields
> won't come up with another standard for Explorer? Well, luckily the
256-colro
> days are almost behind us 8)
>
> "Blue" and "green"
> > are more diffuse in the meaning. Many would for example say that the sky
is
> > blue, but that might not be the correct technical term to use. I am not
very
> > bewandered with this; i just happen to know the story behind, if you see
> > what I mean.
> >
> > Just another point. A curious fact that I guess you are aware of: Many
> > colors cannot even be displayed on a computer screen, even with 500
billion
> > zillion shades of red, green and blue, merely because the human eye can
> > percieve many more colors. For example, if you have a yellow marking pen
and
> > try to recreate the color on the screen, you'll be dissappointed. If you
> > scan it you might not even see it!
>
> Aha! Now this interesting, also in regard to the original question!
> What would be the opposite of ultra-violet? How would you express such a
colour
> in a vector? Is perhaps the way to define colours as RGB vectors not as
perfecet
> as we (computer-users) would like to believe?
> >
> > In the future I think we will get new computer screens wich cover more
of
> > the human eyes capability to see colors. Maybe POV-ray should be able to
> > extend the usual color-system. One could add infra-red channels, for
> > example. (We cannot see those frequencies, but they might have
scientifical
> > importance. Who knows.)
>
> How about describing light by its frequency?
> Now that would be cool. Once POV-Ray could work with that you could even
make
> EM-raytracings ;)
> >
> > Simen.
>
> Have fun!
>
> Remco

Post a reply to this message