Op 16/12/2021 om 17:19 schreef Bill Pragnell:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It all looks impossibly complex-- and quite beautiful. Thanks for sharing the
>> various renders and for explaining the nuts-and-bolts of how it was done.
> 
> Thanks for the interest! Feedback is a real motivator - if people are interested
> in more, I'm more likely to take it further. Not that I'm not interested in it
> for my own sake of course, but real life is so tiring :)
> 
Absolutely right! And this is an inspiring project.

>> In one of your earlier threads/posts, you mentioned the possibility of using a
>> 'radiosity-only' light_source (a feature (?) in UBER POV), for adding
>> additional fill light(?) to some of the darker recesses of your construction.
>> Even if I'm wrong about your meaning, it sounds like an interesting feature to
>> contemplate: A light_source that does not directly light-up an object surface,
>> but does allow the object to emit radiosity bounce-lighting (from that light)
>> to other objects.
> 
> I think what I meant was just to use radiosity to provide all the light, i.e.
> have emissive blobs (maybe hidden using no_image) rather than light sources.
> This isn't an UberPOV-only option, it just works better than in base POV-Ray
> because I don't have to worry about radiosity artifacts.
> 
It has been some while since I last used UberPOV, in fact since I 
switched to the successive v3.8 betas, and I guess those would also 
avoid radiosity artefacts, especially when using stochastic render? I am 
mumbling away, really, and it should be tested of course.

> There was an UberPOV-only option - use lots of distance-faded light_sources.
> This can also be done in base POV-Ray of course, but UberPOV allows such
> light_sources to be ignored over a certain distance away, which turns a dog-slow
> render into something feasible.
> 
Hmm... didn't remember that one.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message