On 28-9-2012 14:33, Ive wrote:
> Am 28.09.2012 10:05, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> I patched in an updated gold nugget bowl with M_Gold(0.9). I first tried
>> a reflectance of 0.5 to see the difference.
>>
> Looks better, methinks ;)

Yes, it does indeed.

> The problem with most of these "old" texture definitions is not only the
> rgb vs. srgb problem. They are simply designed at a time when nobody was
> using radiosity or HDR-lighting (i.e. not necessarily HDRI but
> light_sources with emitting values higher than 1.0). For example
> golds.inc uses an ambient term for the color *calculation* but ambient
> (as part of the finish) gets meanwhile switched off as soon radiosity is
> used.

I fully agree. Normally, I rarely use the "out of the box" textures and 
prefer to brew my own. Only for those special cases like gold I am 
rather unsure and tend to use something available, forgetting that they 
are often far from up-to-date.

> I'm always did find it easier to use textures that come close to real
> world physics (within the limitations of raytracing) and as such do work
> under all lighting conditions (conventional with/without radiosity and
> radiosity only) instead of tweaking a texture every time I use it.

You are privileged to know what you are talking about :-)

> To me this is not so much about photorealism, it is more about laziness ;)

An acceptable way of life ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message