David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
> > It isn't? Boy, I sure must suck then.. I've had reasonable success
> > lighting a room with "artificial" lighting, but as soon as I try to open
> > a door or window and shine sunlight in, my lighting model goes straight
> > to hell.
> >
> > I suppose I could adjust the lighting so that the sunlight doesn't
> > create numbers greater than one, but then my other lights get dimmed
> > into nonexistence and so does my radiosity. A patch that bends the
> > luminance in 48 bits *might* fix this, but it seems like a ghastly way
> > to develop a scene, and I think some kind of adaptive scaling would be
> > much, much better than clipping.
> 
> Well, if you want to get technical, it would be physically accurate to have those
> artificial lights dimmed into nonexistence (assuming enough color depth). Then you
> would just turn off the room lights, display the pic on a black background and stare
> at it until your pupils have dialated enough... of course, the other problem is that
> you'll never get realistic intensities, black levels or contrasts on a CRT.

I think you're missing the point. To avoid clipping problems, I have to
design my scene with extremely low light levels (read: "huh? there's
nothing in the image except this white square") and *hope* that it'll
look better once it gets adjusted. It would make a lot more sense to be
able to work at normal light levels, so I can actually SEE what I'm
doing when I test.

Or I could do what I'm actually doing now, which is to use only
artificial lighting, which ISN'T WHAT I WANTED TO DO. :P

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message