That is a possibility, but if I give you a density of .02, you could guess
that a good gather radius would be around 0.1, but if I give you a density
of 2500, what would your initial guess for gather radius be?  I guess you
could use 1/sqrt(2500)*5 ... and maybe that would be OK... would it be too
confusing, or more clear that what I have now?

Comments?

-Nathan

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   How about this idea:
>   Instead of changing the keyword, you can change the meaning of the
> number following it.
>   Old format: density .02
>   New format: density 2500
> both meaning the same thing.
> 
>   As you say in the documentation, "Actual density per square unit is
> n = 1 / (d*d)".
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> That is a possibility, but if I give you a density of .02, you could guess
> that a good gather radius would be around 0.1, but if I give you a density
> of 2500, what would your initial guess for gather radius be?  I guess you
> could use 1/sqrt(2500)*5 ... and maybe that would be OK... would it be too
> confusing, or more clear that what I have now?
> 
> Comments?
> 
> -Nathan

  For the math illiterate or math lazy which ever the case may be, the lowest
amount of math intensive formulas needed to operate a function, increases the
amount of potential people that stand a chance of successfully using it.

  I vote for a symbolic language and provide the formulas for the whiz kids
who are into the heavier math driven end of the operation. To go with the
last only would run the risk of occluding some users who might otherwise
use it with ease were it not for a lack of a formal math education.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I agree with you here Ken. 
in the beginning, I had no idea of what the numbers should be, and did the
reverse math thing...
But now that i know the relation of the two, it is far better this way...

got with the linear correlation. (I think thats the word)

Ken wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > That is a possibility, but if I give you a density of .02, you could guess
> > that a good gather radius would be around 0.1, but if I give you a density
> > of 2500, what would your initial guess for gather radius be?  I guess you
> > could use 1/sqrt(2500)*5 ... and maybe that would be OK... would it be too
> > confusing, or more clear that what I have now?
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > -Nathan
> 
>   For the math illiterate or math lazy which ever the case may be, the lowest
> amount of math intensive formulas needed to operate a function, increases the
> amount of potential people that stand a chance of successfully using it.
> 
>   I vote for a symbolic language and provide the formulas for the whiz kids
> who are into the heavier math driven end of the operation. To go with the
> last only would run the risk of occluding some users who might otherwise
> use it with ease were it not for a lack of a formal math education.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message

I think of the the terms offered, "spacing" or "dispersion" best reflect the
funcion of this keyword. Of the two, "dispersion" might cause confusion with
a certain other patch - and it's longer. So my vote goes to "spacing"
(unless you find a shorter synonym for the typeamatically challenged like me
:)

Margus

Nathan Kopp wrote in message <370### [at] Koppcom>...
>I personally don't like the way I'm using the 'density' keyword to specify
>photon density.  Usually, when you say density, you want to give a
>items-per-area(or volume) value, not a length value.  So... what would be a
>better keyword?  Would 'spacing' be good? (since you are giving the spacing
>between photons)  I do not want to switch the value to a real density,
because
>right now photon 'density' and gather 'radius' are directly related
(linearly),
>making it easy to test with a low number of photons and switch to a large
>number with predictable results (my 'phd' variable, for those who've looked
at
>my source).
>
>So... is 'spacing' good?  Any other ideas?
>
>-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> I think of the the terms offered, "spacing" or "dispersion" best reflect the
> funcion of this keyword. Of the two, "dispersion" might cause confusion with
> a certain other patch - and it's longer. So my vote goes to "spacing"
> (unless you find a shorter synonym for the typeamatically challenged like me
> :)
> 
> Margus

 Digitaly incumbered ?

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Well, I still don't know why a smaller phong_size increases the highlight
size but a smaller roughness decreases it, but that doesn't bother me. I just
use it with the trial-and-error-method.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
>   Well, I still don't know why a smaller phong_size increases the highlight
> size but a smaller roughness decreases it, but that doesn't bother me. I just
> use it with the trial-and-error-method.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

  I think the term density is misleading and your examples illustrate
why. If I want to increase the density of photons why wouldn't I make
the density number larger instead of smaller. The reason is because I
want to decrease the distance between each photon to increase their
spatial density. By specifying how far the photons are "spread" out
from each other better illustrates conceptually why decreasing the
spread distance between them increases the overall density of of the
photon pattern.

  I haven't read the description for phong highlights in so long I can
offer no insight into that seeming ambiguity. I understand why reducing
the roughness of a surface would increase the tightness of specular
highlights, it would diffuse the light less, but the phong function I
haven't read about in so long and have forgotten since back when I was
using Pov v2.2.
  I seldom use phong in my images anyway preferring the tighter highlights
of the specular function. Probably comes from having worked in a metal
finishing industry for too many years and I expect surfaces finishes to
be nice and bright without large dull spots in the finish. They are after
all cause for reject and that is more paperwork for me to hassle with.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I'm encumbered with a lot of things, but digits ain't one of 'em. :)

Thumb frequency?

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Ken wrote in message <370945BE.8770DB9E@pacbell.net>...
>Margus Ramst wrote:
>>
>> I think of the the terms offered, "spacing" or "dispersion" best reflect
the
>> funcion of this keyword. Of the two, "dispersion" might cause confusion
with
>> a certain other patch - and it's longer. So my vote goes to "spacing"
>> (unless you find a shorter synonym for the typeamatically challenged like
me
>> :)
>>
>> Margus
>
> Digitaly incumbered ?
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Equipotential? nah...

Actually, without opening my Physic's book I think quanta is the best
suggestion.

I can see now I'll be scanning more text books tonight.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

I just tossed in 'quanta' as a quick "what comes to mind" thing for me.
I later looked it up to be sure I was thinking right and it does seem to
apply (or could possibly anyhow). Quanta is particle energy as in
photons, ions, etc. (as I see it) and so was thinking of this in terms
of effective area in the case of photon map density. Not exactly
quantity per se, just a "measure" or sort of intensity within a volume.
Same could be said if 'spread' were used I believe, since it is the
concentration which counts.
Thinking along the lines of light I would probably say 'receptor',
'volume', 'quanta' instead of 'gather', 'radius', 'density'.
I would have said retina, as in the eye light-receiving surface, in
place of receptor (nerve terminal for recieving/sending) but it doesn't
sound right to me.


GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Actually, without opening my Physic's book I think quanta is the best
> suggestion.
> 
> I can see now I'll be scanning more text books tonight.
> 
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message