 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] aol com?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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
