|
 |
sky_sphere is infinite, just the same as though nothing were there.
This would be the same if fog were put in instead (except no visible spotlights)
of media.
The media saturates, or even worse, fails to saturate all that space.
So yes, a media container of enough size to surround the sphere of influence
from the lights would be better.
Although, you can try and decrease density and get some background to show
through that way. It's just not as easy or sometimes not possible to get what's
intended to be done.
Bob
"Nick Portelli" <por### [at] pilot msuedu> wrote in message
news:39062209.57F956E3@pilot.msu.edu...
| Why does the media make the background disappear? All it is is a
| sky_shpere. This is using atmospheric media, would it be faster if I
| enclosed it in a primitive? Other than that I was just goofing around
| at work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
In article <39062209.57F956E3@pilot.msu.edu>, Nick Portelli
<por### [at] pilotmsuedu> wrote:
> Why does the media make the background disappear? All it is is a
> sky_shpere. This is using atmospheric media, would it be faster if I
> enclosed it in a primitive? Other than that I was just goofing
> around at work.
The sky sphere background is at an infinite distance, so there is an
infinite length of media between the camera and the sky. This is why it
is black.
It is usually recommended to place media in some kind of container
object, it is easier to control and adjust that way, and faster.
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
