 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Will a sort of "staged" set of "Trace" and "RadiosityFunction" instances help
> clean up this issue in 3.7, so that another instance of "Trace" is called for
> every Radiosity Bounce Level, and each "RadiosityFunction" instance would have
> a fixed bounce level to operate on?
Well, it does not (fully, at least) explain why some scenes are brighter in
3.7 in some areas. It could indeed explain the dark spots though.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
> Well, it does not (fully, at least) explain why some scenes are brighter in
> 3.7 in some areas. It could indeed explain the dark spots though.
I haven't figured that one out yet, but at the moment I suspect side effects
from other parts of the lighting model. I'm getting quite close to the original
3.6 code at the moment, as far as the radiosity stuff goes.
One thing I noticed was that the balcony scene, when rendered without photons,
does not show the shadow of the drink, so obviously there's some more work to
be done than just radiosity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> One thing I noticed was that the balcony scene, when rendered without photons,
> does not show the shadow of the drink, so obviously there's some more work to
> be done than just radiosity.
Perhaps not. I remember one day rendering a glass scene with and without
photons (no radiosity) and was astounded to realize that glass without
refraction and caustic would feature very little shadow after all. It makes
sense: caustics are the result of bent rays of light passing through the glass
and gathering at a single point or region, so the other parts of the occluded
"shadow" should really show much darker, since the light is not directly going
through the transparent material as in the no refraction/caustics image...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > One thing I noticed was that the balcony scene, when rendered without photons,
> > does not show the shadow of the drink, so obviously there's some more work to
> > be done than just radiosity.
>
> Perhaps not. I remember one day rendering a glass scene with and without
> photons (no radiosity) and was astounded to realize that glass without
> refraction and caustic would feature very little shadow after all. It makes
> sense: caustics are the result of bent rays of light passing through the glass
> and gathering at a single point or region, so the other parts of the occluded
> "shadow" should really show much darker, since the light is not directly going
> through the transparent material as in the no refraction/caustics image...
There's something wrong with your argument:
- This is not just plain water, but some orange-ish drink. We can plainly see
the colour, so it should cast a corresponding coloured shadow.
- In 3.6, it *does* cast the expected shadow when photons are off. In 3.7 it
doesn't: I imagine being able to make out an ever so slight shadow from the
glass itself, but nothing at all from the drink in it.
(BTW, when I talk about "photons being turned off", I actually mean the scene
file being changed to "#declare Photons=off" (or whatever that file happens to
use for it), not disabling photons through INI file quality settings)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
