Warp wrote:
> 
> Xplo Eristotle <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote:
> : How long did that first one take to render, Warp..
> 
>   A couple of minutes.
> 
> : And why didn't you bother to light it properly? Why did you even render
> : it at all? What are we supposed to glean from this image, other than the
> : fact that you're apparently using a nightlight to illuminate the scene?
> 
>   I didn't use any light at all (in the first two images).

<snip>

>   As I undestand it, the second image is brighter than the first one because
> the white floor reflects light to the other objects. At recursion level 1
> this doesn't happen.

So why is the floor so dark in the first image, then? If it's getting
its light from some sort of glowing sky or ceiling, which would seem to
be the case, then it should be just as bright as the floor in the second
image (given that light from the objects doesn't seem to have much
influence on the floor).

I'm inclined to think that this is a bug (and Kari's made comments to
that effect, IIRC), but I wonder what one could produce with some
parameter tweaking.

>   2. When the radiosity calculations make the rendering very slow, you can
> actually use area lights to speed up the rendering without any quality
> decrease (you may experience even a quality increase since the direct
> illumination is better).
>   Someone gave the idea that using area lights is of no use since you get
> a completely different image. The third image was made to test if this is
> true. Well, it isn't.

Your conclusion is pretty premature there, Warp. I don't see anything in
this scene that would depend on photons, specular reflections, "simple"
caustics, harsh direct illumination, or scattering media, the first four
of which would probably not sit well with multiple area lights and the
last one which might also be slower rather than faster. I also don't see
this being of much use in confined spaces, such as autowitch's
recently-posted Egyptian chamber.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message