|
 |
In article <3dd5ac26$1@news.povray.org>, "Slime" <slm### [at] slimeland com>
wrote:
> I thought, at first, that I could apply the inverse of the matrix
> transformation to the normal, but then I realized that this wouldn't work in
> all cases.
You are correct. The answer is pretty simple: transform the normal by
the transpose of the inverse of the transformation matrix.
Ok, it's simple assuming you know some matrix math. ;-)
This should explain things a bit more thoroughly:
http://www1.acm.org/pubs/tog/resources/RTNews/html/rtnews1a.html#art4
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
