In article <3a01b2e0@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   Parallel rays can't create soft shadows. With parallel rays each point
> is hit by exactly 0 or 1 light ray. There's no way a single point could
> be hit by more than 1 light ray when all the rays are parallel to each
> other.

I thought I just finished explaining that I know that, and that I am not 
talking about parallel rays...


>   It's not an alternative since the light rays are not parallel in that
> case. More than 1 ray can hit the same point and thus cause soft shadows.

Um, it *is* an alternative. You can attempt an area light far enough 
that rays of light from each point are nearly parallel but large enough 
to give soft shadows, but which stretches the limits of allowable 
distance, or you can simulate the distance(parallel light!) while 
keeping the soft shadows(area light!) by having a "parallel" area light. 
(notice the quotes!)


>   And besides, there's no difference between an area light located at
> 150 millions of km and 10 km (with equal apparent sizes) when the scene
> is small (some meters wide).

When it is small, the difference certainly is so tiny that it probably 
won't make any difference in the image...but that is often not the case. 
Think of how many sunlit scenes there are that are more than a couple 
meters wide...or more than a couple kilometers in size.
And this sounds like an argument against having *any* parallel light 
patch, not just against "parallel" area lights.


>   "Parallel area light" is a completely wrong term here. If the rays are
> parallel, they all go to the same direction, ie. are all parallel to each
> other, and thus can't cause soft shadows.

I know it is the wrong term, but I don't think there is a better one. 
"Blurred parallel light" isn't quite right...


>   The light rays coming from the Sun are not parallel.

Who said they were?


> : Besides, people will expect having area lights to blur the shadows.
> 
>   Thus, it can't use parallel rays.

I know, as I said, it will have to adjust them slightly to hit a "area 
light" along a line parallel to the light direction.
"Instead of being truely parallel in the area light case, the rays 
should be adjusted so soft shadows still work."
The patch apparently does this already, my question was about why Ron 
thought it was wrong, since doing it the "right" way would make it 
useless except as a way to slow down renders.

And all this still doesn't answer the question that seems to be giving 
Ryan problems...what isn't the parallel light patch doing that he needs? 
What do these "distant lights" do that the parallel light patch doesn't, 
besides render faster?

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
: I know it is the wrong term, but I don't think there is a better one. 

  Perhaps "directional light source" could be better.
  That is, instead of saying "the light comes from this point" it says
"the light comes from this direction".

  This can be easily implemented by "translating" the light source so that
it is always in the same place relative to any point in the scene.
  A possible syntax could be something like:

light_source
{ LOCATION, COLOR
  [area_light AREALIGHT_PARAMS]
  directional point_at POINT
}

  When calculating the lighting of some point <x,y,z> in the scene, the
light source is "translated" so that its POINT value becomes <x,y,z>
(as if we had made a "translate <x,y,z>-POINT" to the light source at
each <x,y,z> in the scene).
  That is, the light source is located always in the same place relative
to each point (ie. each point "sees" the light source at the same direction
and distance).

  This should be easy to implement and it even shouldn't be noticeably
slower than a regular light source.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> : I know it is the wrong term, but I don't think there is a better one.
> 
>   Perhaps "directional light source" could be better.
>   That is, instead of saying "the light comes from this point" it says
> "the light comes from this direction".
> 
>   This can be easily implemented by "translating" the light source so that
> it is always in the same place relative to any point in the scene.
	Uh? isn't it more or less what the parallel keyword does?


-- 

* Abandon the search for truth, * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* Settle for a good fantasy.    * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*********************************

Post a reply to this message

On 2 Nov 2000 11:24:03 -0500, Warp wrote:
>  What I don't understand is why people who want to simulate sunlight
>want to locate their light source at 150 millions of kilometers while
>their scene is some meters wide.

It is indeed somewhat unnecessary in this case. But often a scene is
several 100,000 km wide. Just imagine a scene where the moon is visible,
which is 384,000 km (on average) away. Now of course you can just put a
moon-shaped disk somewhere in the air, but to me that's "painting" not
"raytracing". I am much more interested in building accurate models
than in producing pretty pictures.

	hp

-- 


| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      |    -- Lutz Donnerhacke in dasr.
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:53:35 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>The patch apparently does this already, my question was about why Ron 
>thought it was wrong, since doing it the "right" way would make it 
>useless except as a way to slow down renders.

I think having a special case to make "parallel" area lights do something
nonphysical (especially without documenting it, though that's mostly my
fault) is wrong.  The right thing to do, IMHO, would be to throw a warning
if a parallel area light is used.

I don't even know exactly what it is that "parallel" area lights do, but 
since it has no physical basis, it would be preferable to use a properly-sized
area light at a proper distance instead.


-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Btw, it's a common misconception that light rays coming from the Sun are
> parallel.
>
>   Actually the Sun is an area light. Its size is significant and thus the
> rays coming from it are not parallel. Light rays coming from opposite sides
> of the Sun disk hit a point in the Earth at different angles.
>
>   Thinking about it, there should not be big difference between a circular
> light source with the radius of the Sun at a distance of the Sun from the
> Earth, and a circular light source at 1km of distance and respectively
> smaller radius (so that its apparent size is the same), given that our
> scene is some meters wide.

If the sun was a point light, the rays coming at Earth would form such a tight
(practically degenerate) cone that you might as well call them parallel, rather
than put a POV light at -1000000000000*x or whatever and get float problems.
This is only good for non-area-lighting though.

Parallel rays with area lights makes no sense, because it is the
non-parallelity(?) of the rays itself that gives soft shadows. So you are
perfectly right about that. However, the size of the shadow relative to the
object casting it (in soft shadows we will define the outline as the area
that's 50% light and 50% shadow) for all practical purposes remains constant, a
phenomenon really only possible with parallel rays, because the sun is at such
a large distance from the Earth. So when using hard lighting, you might as well
make it parallel.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3A04E82F.2DDCFF3D@faricy.net...
>
> If the sun was a point light, the rays coming at Earth would form such a
tight
> (practically degenerate) cone that you might as well call them parallel

I'm going off on a tangent here but you made me think of a possible new
feature: converging ray spotlights.  Easily described as a spotlight which
shines in a direction opposite a regular spotlight, starting from a radius and
going to a point.  Wouldn't that be like previous suggestions for a arealight
in some way?  Light coming from an area and the "soft shadows" caused by
wrap-around light.  I'm almost certain this has been discussed before.
Well, this topic caught my attention.  Sorry if I interrupted.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

I don't think you can get an accurate model by putting the moon at
384000 km. At least it will not be any more accurate as the moon being
at 1000 km.
  If you want an accurate result, you'll have to simulate the refraction and
diffraction of the light rays coming from the moon when they travel through
the atmosphere.

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

Post a reply to this message

: 	Uh? isn't it more or less what the parallel keyword does?

  Horribly wrong keyword.

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

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote:
: If the sun was a point light

... then the rays would be parallel. But since the Sun is not a point light,
the rays are not parallel.

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

Post a reply to this message