![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 13:30:08 +0200, Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peak edu ee>
wrote:
>Both (true) radiosity and photon mapping should be applicable to a
>raytracing engine. I am not sure if they can be applied to POV without
>fundamental changes; I believe both would require some kind of surface
>meshing.
Photon mapping doesn't require any meshing. Whether it can be
smoothly added to POV is another question, but one which I hope to
find an answer to once I get the superpatch where I want it.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> Actually they are not rays, but waves.
Are you so sure? Most physics scientists aren't... They
agree that light sure behaves like a wave, but it also
behaves like a particle.
> This may start a physics flame war, but a photon is not a
particle but
>a electromagnetic wave quantum (is that the right term? I
have studied
>physics only in finnish... :) ).
Well, yes , an "electromagnetic wave quantum" seems the best
way to visualise
(visualize ;) ) it. I guess the Finnish get the same physics
at school as in Holland... :)
Just wondering... does raytracing get any easier to
understand if you think about light as electromagnetic wave
quanta?
Julius Klatte
http://surf.to/jkhome
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Ah, physics concerning ray-tracing, good to hear. Bad to implement. Ha ha!
that's a joke, get it? Oh well...
Seriously though, I'd vote for the old bent straws going from camera to
surface to light source, but think of the clutter. Oh, I was going to be
serious. I'm out of here.
Message <3665d600.0@news.povray.org>, Julius Klatte typed...
>
>Just wondering... does raytracing get any easier to
>understand if you think about light as electromagnetic wave
>quanta?
>
>Julius Klatte
>http://surf.to/jkhome
>
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.html
=Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Ronald L. Parker wrote:
> Photon mapping doesn't require any meshing. Whether it can be
> smoothly added to POV is another question, but one which I hope to
> find an answer to once I get the superpatch where I want it.
Photon mapping (i.e. Nathan's patched 3.1a source [1]) works for me.
(I had to remove a call to a function like "WIN_something" in tokenize.c
which didn't exist on my Unixen, and remove his C++-style comments
(real CCs don't like them)).
It is probably the thing Dave was looking for.
Rendering time increses by a factor of 10 ... 100.
I did not look at the superpatch yet - Nathan's page mentions it
as "old" in a section which itself is called "Old News", so I
decided to ignore it.
Ralf
[1]: http://nathan.kopp.com/patched.htm
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |