"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff-C72E92.06404009102000@news.povray.org...
> In article <39e1a990@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
> wrote:
>
> >   It's not the same thing.
> >   Well, it is for convex objects but not every object.
>
> Maybe true...on the other hand, the user might *expect* the results to
> be the same as using partial transparency, with darker areas where the
> object overlaps itself more times. In other words, a pair of cubes with
> "shadows 0.5" should probably look the same as a union of the same cubes
> with "shadows 0.5"...which would probably be impossible or difficult to
> implement and very confusing to use otherwise...should light passing
> through two objects with "shadows 0.5" be attenuated to 0.25 or 0.5 of
> it's original? What if the objects have "shadows 0.2" and "shadows 0.6"?


mmh, yes. Confusing and difficult to implement, I can see that. I'll
think over it for a while to see if I can come with a good explanation of
what I have in mind (and check if what I think of does show a consistent
behavior).


Povingly,

Philippe

Post a reply to this message