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

'quanta' perhaps?


Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> 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

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

Post a reply to this message

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> 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

 Spacing has an unlikable quality that is hard to pin down but it doesn't
sound right to me.  Take your pick of intensity, quantity, spread, proportion,
measure, lumens, wattage, BTU's, lux, or candle power. I would have to get
out my physics books to dig up any more related terms.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

I go for quantity ... A bit longish, but then, not aburdly so.


Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
//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

Spider wrote:
> 
> I go for quantity ... A bit longish, but then, not aburdly so.
> 

Hmmm... but 'quantity' has the same problem as 'density' in that someone
would expect the number to follow to represent the 'quantity' of photons
(an integer specifying how many there are).  I need a word that conveys the
fact that the number following it is the space between photons.

(I kind of like 'spread', which Ken suggested)

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
> >
> > 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
> 
>  Spacing has an unlikable quality that is hard to pin down but it doesn't
> sound right to me.  Take your pick of intensity, quantity, spread, proportion,
> measure, lumens, wattage, BTU's, lux, or candle power. I would have to get
> out my physics books to dig up any more related terms.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

  Upon further reflection (no pun intended) the word "dispersion" seems quite
suited to the description of the function. The word "Spread" may offer a
short yet accurate description as well.
 I don't think "Quantity" is an accurate term since the density is only one
factor that determines the number of photons shot and the way they are grouped.
There is another one "Grouping".

How about Herd_Count ? Flock_Number ? Seating_Arrangement ?


-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

In article <370### [at] Koppcom> , Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] Koppcom>  
wrote:

> 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?

Perhaps intensity?


    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Well then, I like spread or intensity..



-- 
//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

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

seating_arrangement sounds great!  ;-)

Ken wrote:

> How about Herd_Count ? Flock_Number ? Seating_Arrangement ?
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

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

Obviously, yours was the first post I saw, and it struck me as very
appropriate. I haven't read anything on particles in sometime, though. None
of it stuck. :)

Well, okay, some of it stuck.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet
Bob Hughes wrote in message <370### [at] aolcom>...
>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.
>

Post a reply to this message

Nathan,

  I posted that I liked the keyword quanta, but I thought I would pass along
a few other ideas. :)

  The following are listed in no particular order. If I have their meaning
wrong it is due to ignorance and age. It's been at least five years since I
read anything of Quantum Mechanics, Properties of Light, etc.

discrete (discretion) - makes more sense given the nature of the variable
saturation  - hey, self-evident
Planck - Not precise, but appropriate nonetheless
energy - kind of like discrete (more energy = more space)
intensity - appropriate given your formula in place (probably most
appropriate)

  Forgive me. I spent a sleepless night and this just wouldn't leave my
thoughts.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:
> 
> Nathan,
> 
>   I posted that I liked the keyword quanta, but I thought I would pass along
> a few other ideas. :)
> 
>   The following are listed in no particular order. If I have their meaning
> wrong it is due to ignorance and age. It's been at least five years since I
> read anything of Quantum Mechanics, Properties of Light, etc.
> 
> discrete (discretion) - makes more sense given the nature of the variable
> saturation  - hey, self-evident
> Planck - Not precise, but appropriate nonetheless
> energy - kind of like discrete (more energy = more space)
> intensity - appropriate given your formula in place (probably most
> appropriate)
> 
>   Forgive me. I spent a sleepless night and this just wouldn't leave my
> thoughts.
> 
> GrimDude
> vos### [at] arkansasnet

 I too suggested intensity as an approprate term but I think that
I would lead to even more confusion. Too many people are going
to associate the term with the brightness level of light, and the
return of brightness from the photons, as a result of adjustemnting
this parameter. While it is true that there will be a difference
in the over all intensity of the light returned by adjusting this
it is a bit misleading as to thr why it does this. It isn't
implicit that the density or the photon pattern is increased
or decread by paramter as well as other terms might.

Saturation is good if not a bit lengthy, discreate a bit too vague,
energy too misleading, and no way am I going to walk (with) the
planck.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <37228B83.B403B110@pacbell.net>...
> I too suggested intensity as an approprate term but I think that
>I would lead to even more confusion.

You lead me to confusion! :)

>Saturation is good if not a bit lengthy, discreate a bit too vague,
>energy too misleading, and no way am I going to walk (with) the
>planck.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler


Planck wouldn't let me walk with him either. ;^)

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

GrimDude wrote:

>   I posted that I liked the keyword quanta, but I thought I would pass along
> a few other ideas. :)

I guess you wrote about replacements for "density"?
In this case, I'd prefer "separation".

> Planck - Not precise, but appropriate nonetheless
> energy - kind of like discrete (more energy = more space)
> intensity - appropriate given your formula in place (probably most
> appropriate)

I'm unhappy with all words that somehow remind of quantum
theory (including "photons" itself) -- what the patch does,
is to compute rays from the light source.
This might mislead newbies, and lead to name clashes in version
17.4 of 2023, which will take into account real quantum optical
effects :-)

Ralf

Post a reply to this message

> which will take into account real quantum optical
> effects :-)

ooo, can hardly wait :)

Rick

Post a reply to this message

>I'm unhappy with all words that somehow remind of quantum
>theory (including "photons" itself) -- what the patch does,
>is to compute rays from the light source.
>This might mislead newbies, and lead to name clashes in version
>17.4 of 2023, which will take into account real quantum optical
>effects :-)
>


That being the case we would have no choice but adopt "intensity" now.

GrimDude
vos### [at] arkansasnet

Post a reply to this message

'distribution' is good

Nathan Kopp wrote:

> 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

In article <382F7EBE.D174A959@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> , 
mne### [at] carmenmurdocheduau  wrote:

> 'distribution' is good
>
> Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
>> 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

Please notice that the news.povray.org server keeps messages for a very long
time - the message you replied to is from April 4th, 1999 :-)
You may want to set you newsreader to only show/download a specific number
of recent messages (i.e. 300 or 500) or set it to sort messages by date.


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message