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.

  The comparison was: radiosity without light sources vs. radiosity with
light sources.
  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), so I don't
understand why would you use any of those in a scene without light sources.
  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.

: 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.
  I made the same test myself, but without any light source (I discussed
this in p.u-p if I remember correctly). If we don't count the artifacts
in the corners (which appear for a reason yet to be explained), the
overall illumination is rather similar. The render, however, took more than
20 hours.
  The difference in speed is notable.

  (Btw, the image in question can be found at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~warp/cornell/cornell.jpg)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message