Jim Charter wrote:
> Jeremy M. Praay wrote:
>> Jaime recently mentioned "diffuse + reflection = 1". [...]
>
> For a long long time I typically adjusted 
> diffuse/specular/reflection as some sort of loosely conceived division 
> up of a unit whole.  

   Now that you mention it, I was just thinking about specular, and also 
phong, having the same "relation" with diffuse. Re-reading the part of 
the docs about diffuse, seems it accounts for anything that is not 
direct light reflection. As specular and phong both simulate reflection 
of the light sources, seems that also diffuse+specular or diffuse+phong 
should be 1. But we use traditionally specular or phong coupled with 
reflection, so I really don't know what to do with all this...

   Oh... I almost forgot about the original post: I prefer 22 or 23, 
both look very convincing.

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message