 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does anyone have a link to a list of known diffuse coefficients? I would
like to know what diffuse to use without having to guess each time. Thanks
in advance for any help.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a link to a list of known diffuse coefficients? I would
> like to know what diffuse to use without having to guess each time. Thanks
> in advance for any help.
This might be of help:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bes/graphics/spectra/
However, I haven't read everything in there so I'm not quite sure I
grasp the full meaning of these numbers.
--
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
flabreque | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
@ | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
videotron.ca | before outside influences start corrupting their
| expression. - Chris R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thank you, that link was so helpful! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> However, I haven't read everything in there so I'm not quite sure I
> grasp the full meaning of these numbers.
On closer inspection, neither do I. Is the Chrominance the RGB and the
Luminance the Diffuse? What about the other numbers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Known diffuse coefficients?
I was no where near that neighborhood!
I plead absolute innocence. A clear case of mistaken
identity!!!
I will fight this until my last dying brea......
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > However, I haven't read everything in there so I'm not quite sure I
> > grasp the full meaning of these numbers.
>
> On closer inspection, neither do I. Is the Chrominance the RGB and the
> Luminance the Diffuse?
That's what I think it is.
> What about the other numbers?
I think it's the "luminance" broken down by wavelength (400 nm being the
wavelength of red light)
Could someone who understands this enlighten us (no pun intended)?
Kari, maybe?
--
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
flabreque | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
@ | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
videotron.ca | before outside influences start corrupting their
| expression. - Chris R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:08:14 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>
>"Tony[B]" wrote:
>>
>> > However, I haven't read everything in there so I'm not quite sure I
>> > grasp the full meaning of these numbers.
>>
>> On closer inspection, neither do I. Is the Chrominance the RGB and the
>> Luminance the Diffuse?
>
>That's what I think it is.
I thought Chroma and Luma were somehow related to Y/C in television, and
somewhat related to HSB.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> I think it's the "luminance" broken down by wavelength (400 nm being the
> wavelength of red light)
>
Sorry, it's the otherway round: red light is about 700 nm,
bluelight at about 400 nm,
bigger than 700 nm are infra-red (then the whole radio thing)
smaller than 400 nm are ultraviolet (sp) then X-ray and so.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> Luminance the Diffuse?
Yes. I don't know how it's calculated from the spectral data but it's
close enough to be used as pov diffuse.
Here are some reference values. You can pretty much guess the diffuse
for other materials using these.
specular aluminum 0.95
new snow 0.75
concrete 0.40
vegetation (mean) 0.25
asphalt 0.07
______________________________________________________________________
Kari Kivisalo http://www.kivisalo.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, I know you know more about this stuff than the rest of us do... Here's
an example, taken from here
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~bes/graphics/spectra/19_WHITE.sd
# File: /usr/testbed/files/sdb//macbeth.sdb
# Material Class: MACBETH CHART
# Material Name: 19 WHITE
# Comment:
# white mccamy76 19 white
# NBS Index: 263 white
# Chromaticity: (0.309906, 0.317325, 0.372769) luminance 0.898767
# Coefficient of Extinction: 0.000000
# Index of Refraction: 0.000000
# Average Energy: 0.582036
246 <snip>long list</pins>
Now, the way I read is is:
texture {pigment {rgb <0.309906,0.317325,0.372769>} finish {ambient 0
diffuse 0.898767}}
What would "average energy" be, and how do I apply it to these numbers?
Thanks in advance, Kari.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > On closer inspection, neither do I. Is the Chrominance the RGB and the
> > Luminance the Diffuse?
>
> That's what I think it is.
>
> > What about the other numbers?
>
> I think it's the "luminance" broken down by wavelength (400 nm being the
> wavelength of red light)
>
> Could someone who understands this enlighten us (no pun intended)?
To me it looks like the Chromaticity values are the CIE x, y and z
tristimuli values, and Luminance is the CIE Y value.
To convert these values to RGB, I think you have to multiply each of the
chromaticity values by the luminance value.
The long list of numbers are the reflection values for each wavelength.
I don't think any of these values has anything to do with "diffuse
coefficients".
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> To me it looks like the Chromaticity values are the CIE x, y and z
> tristimuli values, and Luminance is the CIE Y value.
> To convert these values to RGB, I think you have to multiply each of the
> chromaticity values by the luminance value.
I tried that and ended up with some very very weird colors. Leaving them
as-is works fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jérôme Grimbert wrote:
>
> Francois Labreque wrote:
> >
> > I think it's the "luminance" broken down by wavelength (400 nm being the
> > wavelength of red light)
> >
>
> Sorry, it's the otherway round: red light is about 700 nm,
> bluelight at about 400 nm,
> bigger than 700 nm are infra-red (then the whole radio thing)
> smaller than 400 nm are ultraviolet (sp) then X-ray and so.
I knew that.
Another very fine example of why I shouldn't post before getting my
morning coffee.
--
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
flabreque | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
@ | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
videotron.ca | before outside influences start corrupting their
| expression. - Chris R.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > To me it looks like the Chromaticity values are the CIE x, y and z
> > tristimuli values, and Luminance is the CIE Y value.
> > To convert these values to RGB, I think you have to multiply each of the
> > chromaticity values by the luminance value.
>
> I tried that and ended up with some very very weird colors. Leaving them
> as-is works fine.
You are right, multiplying by Y yields too dark colours, but on the
other hand, using the xyz-value gives too little difference between the
colours to justify names like Light Blue, Dark Blue or Strong Blue
(which are the colours I have used for my tests).
I have reviewed the CIE formula, and come to the conclusion, that it is
better to convert back from xyz to XYZ values and use them as RGB. That
is done by multiplying x and z by Y divided by y: X = x * (Y/y), Z = z
*(Y/y). Y we already have as the luminance.
/Ib
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I have reviewed the CIE formula, and come to the conclusion, that it is
> better to convert back from xyz to XYZ values and use them as RGB. That
> is done by multiplying x and z by Y divided by y: X = x * (Y/y), Z = z
> *(Y/y). Y we already have as the luminance.
Actually, right now, I'm dividing each chromaticity value by the largest
value of the triplet, and using luminance as diffuse. It works as expected,
most of the time. Some colors are a bit dark.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" wrote:
>
> > I have reviewed the CIE formula, and come to the conclusion, that it is
> > better to convert back from xyz to XYZ values and use them as RGB. That
> > is done by multiplying x and z by Y divided by y: X = x * (Y/y), Z = z
> > *(Y/y). Y we already have as the luminance.
>
> Actually, right now, I'm dividing each chromaticity value by the largest
> value of the triplet, and using luminance as diffuse. It works as expected,
> most of the time. Some colors are a bit dark.
That brings the question to mind: how do you know what to expect?
Anyway, I have tried your technique, and compared it to my suggestion,
and we get very similar colours. There is however a subtle difference in
the shading of the spheres, that I used for my test. I think that is
because you change the ratio between the amount of diffuse and ambient
light, that is reflected from the surface, and that changes the
difference between highlights and shadows along with the apparent
colour. I prefer to control the colour with the rgb-values, and leave
ambient and diffuse alone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That brings the question to mind: how do you know what to expect?
Because I have a rough idea what the materials look like... you need to get
out more. ;)
> Anyway, I have tried your technique, and compared it to my suggestion,
> and we get very similar colours.
Excelent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
