Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> 
> I cancelled the previous post because I just noticed that
> the image I used as reference is synthetic and not from a
> CCD camera. Oh well, I guess it's close enough to a real photo.
> 

I think that while you can tweak it to get pretty close to the real thing, I
don't think this serves much purpose as a measurement of POV's radiosity
quality.
In this case, you have a reliable picture of the real thing to go by. But it
seems you have to use some rather unrealistic parameters to get there. For
example diffuse 1.2 would mean that the surface reflects more light that it
receives.
My point is, you can't really make many general conclusions from these settings
since they are highly optimized for this particular scene.
        
Not that I'm critisizing your efforts - I am currently having a lot of fun with
the same thing :)

-- 
Margus Ramst

Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message