Warp wrote:
> Severi Salminen <sev### [at] not_thissibafi> wrote:

>   He said that POV-Ray is unable to render "blooms" and then gave an image
> to demonstrate what a "bloom" is.
>   Since this image was rendered with POV-Ray, there's an ironic contradiction
> in that.

This is what he said:

"Already POV-ray can calculate photorealistic blooms around light 
sources using atmosphere, but not yet around bright surface highlights. 
For an idea of what a bloom is, look at the bell tower in this image."

Obviously he had two different kinds of blooms in mind. It is not clear 
whether he used the image to demonstrate these "atmospheric blooms" or 
"highlight blooms" - whatever he meant with them. If the latter or both, 
then there is a contradiction, if the first then there is not. But how 
can we find that out anymore.

Maybe he wanted POV-Ray to simulate these blooms without using media 
(some post-processing step) or something...

PS. I'm not trying to guess what "a bloom" is or isn't and how it can or 
can't be modeled in POV-Ray.

S.S.

Post a reply to this message