Like "shadowless" lights it would be nice to have "specularless" lights for
use as fill lights.

Roy

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
>   Besides, it would be more logical with the syntax "specular on/off".

For shadowless lights the syntax is "shadowless". So why shouldn't it be
"specularless" or "highlightless" accordingly. But as Thorsten pointed out,
this is the wrong place to discuss this. So lets continue in povray.general

Roy

Post a reply to this message

"Nathan Kopp" <nat### [at] koppcom>
> Last time I checked, shadowless lights were also highlight-less (a.k.a.
> specularless).  Strange but true (unless someone changed it in POV 3.5).

I didn't checked this yet, but for fill lights it would be nice sometimes to
have a (area) light with shadows but without highlights. Since this is the
wrong place for this discussion, as Thorsten pointed out, I moved to
povray.general.

Roy

Post a reply to this message

Roy Schulz wrote:
> 
> Like "shadowless" lights it would be nice to have "specularless" lights for
> use as fill lights.
> 

As Nathan mentioned in p.b-t. shadowless lights are 'specularless' so this
is not the problem.  If you want without specular but with shadow, you
could use a second object with 'no_image'.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Roy Schulz <roy### [at] gmxde> wrote:
: Like "shadowless" lights it would be nice to have "specularless" lights for
: use as fill lights.

  As I said in p.b-t, it should be "specular on/off".

  You say that it should be "specularless" for consistency with "shadowless".
I disagree. The "shadowless" keyword syntax is a relic, and not very good.
(Why there has to be a different keyword for light sources and for objects?)

  So the problem is not with "specular on/off". The problem is really with
"shadowless", which should better be "shadows on/off" for both light sources
and objects (and "shadowless" and "no_shadow" should be removed or at least
deprecated).

  There's also another advantage of using "specular on/off": It contaminates
less the already bloated namespace of the POV-Ray syntax. (And substituting
"shadowless/no_shadow" with "shadows on/off" also reduces the number of
reserved keywords by one.)

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   As I said in p.b-t, it should be "specular on/off".
> 
>   You say that it should be "specularless" for consistency with "shadowless".
> I disagree. The "shadowless" keyword syntax is a relic, and not very good.
> (Why there has to be a different keyword for light sources and for objects?)
> 
>   So the problem is not with "specular on/off". The problem is really with
> "shadowless", which should better be "shadows on/off" for both light sources
> and objects (and "shadowless" and "no_shadow" should be removed or at least
> deprecated).
> 
>   There's also another advantage of using "specular on/off": It contaminates
> less the already bloated namespace of the POV-Ray syntax. (And substituting
> "shadowless/no_shadow" with "shadows on/off" also reduces the number of
> reserved keywords by one.)

Interesting idea, although 'specular off' for objects would be quite
weird.  Another problem comes with the other no_* keywords.  

no_image -> image off     would seem OK, but
no_reflection -> reflection off     would be extremely irritating since
it's not clear what reflection you actually turn off.

And now that we are talking about this stuff i would also find a
no_radiosity or radiosity on/off modifier for objects very useful.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
: Interesting idea, although 'specular off' for objects would be quite
: weird.

  I didn't suggest adding "specular on/off" to objects.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Like Christoph I think, that "specular on/off" would be inconsitent with
no_image, no_reflection, which shouldn't be changed for the reasons, he
mentioned. But I agree with you, Warp, that there is no need for different
keywords in object and light source statements. So how about "no_shadow" in
both and "no_highlight" in light_source?

Roy

Post a reply to this message

Roy Schulz <roy### [at] gmxde> wrote:
: So how about "no_shadow" in
: both and "no_highlight" in light_source?

  So how do you actually turn hightlights *on* for a light source?

  There are no "no_*" keywords in a light source definition. Why should we
start introducing them now?

  "specular on/off" makes much more sense. You can turn specular highlights
on and off and it saves one keyword. The "shadowless" should also be replaced
with "shadows on/off" for consistency.

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message