I see, keywords for use in their own parent statements.
Refraction just comes to mind even if it isn't really.  It seems a form of
light-bending.  I get your meaning though.

Bob

"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-837715.18104428012000@news.povray.org...
| In article <38921dfb@news.povray.org>, "Bob Hughes"
| <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote:
|
| > blur_amount seems a nondescript term, esp. since reflection blurring
| > exists; how about trans_blur?
|
| That is the goal. Since it will be used in a transparence {} block(or a
| reflectivity {} block), there is no need to have it use transparence in
| the name, and the same keyword can be used for blurred transparence and
| for blurred reflection(in my modified syntax, anyway). This means fewer
| keywords to memorize. And it describes exactly what it's parameter is,
| the amount of blur.
|
|
| > Or better yet diffuse_refraction?
|
| Well, it really isn't affected by refraction and isn't a form of
| refraction...and this keyword really doesn't describe the meaning of the
| keyword, at least not as obviously as blur_amount.
|
| --
| Chris Huff
| e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
| Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message