whewdoggeee!

TonyB wrote:

>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

I like the eye-logo in the corner.  :-)

-Nathan

TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
> I've been in the radiosity mood lately, so I decided to do something about
> it. Inspired by the recent images of outdoor radiosity by Fabian Brau, I
set
> to do something similar myself. Then I remembered that I'm not good at
> texturing (yet), so I did something simple, then I played with textures a
> bit more, and got something better. Two notes:

Post a reply to this message

>I like the eye-logo in the corner.  :-)

I'm glad you do. I was field-testing it. :) BTW, do you feel that the
caustics made any difference on the floor? I'm beginning to doubt any real
change. Also, do you have any suggestion for increasing the visibility of
reflective caustics? I tried this on a white plane, and they were barely
visible (from the cylinder). Thanks.

Post a reply to this message

TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote...
> >I like the eye-logo in the corner.  :-)
>
> I'm glad you do. I was field-testing it. :) BTW, do you feel that the
> caustics made any difference on the floor? I'm beginning to doubt any real
> change. Also, do you have any suggestion for increasing the visibility of
> reflective caustics? I tried this on a white plane, and they were barely
> visible (from the cylinder). Thanks.

Caustics from the floor will make little difference in this scene, because
they will be overpowered by the direct light.  Even the light contribution
from diffuse interaction (radiosity) will probably be brighter than what
comes from the photons.  If you want to, try rendering it both ways and then
do a difference on the two images to see how much light the photons
contribute.  Personally, I'd find that very interesting.

The reflective caustics from the cylinder, unfortunately, will always be
very dim.  The shape of the cylinder disperses the light, so that it is much
dimmer and is drowned out by the direct light.  That kind of reflective
caustic is generally only visible if it reflects into a shadow, and even
then it is dim because the light energy is spread out over a large area.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

>If you want to, try rendering it both ways and then
>do a difference on the two images to see how much light the photons
>contribute.  Personally, I'd find that very interesting.

Thanks for the explanation. I will try what you suggest. Let's see what
happens. :)

>The reflective caustics from the cylinder, unfortunately, will always be
>very dim.  The shape of the cylinder disperses the light, so that it is
much
>dimmer and is drowned out by the direct light.  That kind of reflective
>caustic is generally only visible if it reflects into a shadow, and even
>then it is dim because the light energy is spread out over a large area.

Interesting. OK. Thanks. :)

Post a reply to this message

>If you want to, try rendering it both ways and then
>do a difference on the two images to see how much light the photons
>contribute.  Personally, I'd find that very interesting.

Here it is. Apparently, there were some differences. Especially on the cube.
I hope this enlightens you. :)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'difference.jpg' (9 KB)

Preview of image 'difference.jpg'