Warp wrote:
> 
> Xplo Eristotle <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote:
> : 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.
> 
>   If you don't use light sources at all you don't get any of those effects
> anyways (or in the case of scattering media it would probably be seen, but
> the light will certainly not interact with it as expected)...

My point is that (a) you *need* light sources for those effects, and (b)
they're NOT going to look the same if you have area lights scattered
everywhere, and therefore (c) your solution is a highly limited one, not
suitable for most scenes.

> so I don't
> understand why would you use any of those in a scene without light sources.

Okay, now you're just being stupid.

>   If you are using scattering media in a scene without light sources I think
> that a combination of emitting and absorbing media would get the same
> effect faster. If the media is global, fog would probably do it.

Um, not from what I understand. Radiosity can be set to affect media -
yes? - which means that a bright object should glow in a scattering
media, which it would not do in any other sort of media, nor in fog.

> : I also don't see
> : this being of much use in confined spaces, such as autowitch's
> : recently-posted Egyptian chamber.
> 
>   If you remember, Kari Kivisalo made his cornell box test using an area
> light source. I don't remember the rendering time, but IIRC it was some
> hours.

Kari used ONE light, positioned in the one place where light would
logically enter the room: the lit panel in the ceiling. That's not even
remotely the same thing as your horde of "trick" fill lights.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message