On Sun, 28 May 2000 09:19:02 -0500, "Tony[B]"
<ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:

>Yours does have certain aspects which I like, but it seems less realistic
>than the other one.

Tony, this isn't directed at you, but to everyone:

Has anyone reading this news group *ever* actually seen a physical
room identical to the one being used here for these radiosity tests?
If not, how on earth can you debate some of the more minor issues of
realism, when comparing two different radiosity tests?

This sort of room is a standard test subject for radiosity. It even
has an official name. (I think it's a Cornell Box?) Has any of us ever
seen such a room in real life?

I suggest creating some sort of standard *physical* environment to
serve as a reference point for testing your radiosity renderings. To
this end, I'm thinking of building my own physical implementation of
the Cornell Box. It will have the same basic colors and lighting as
these computer simulations. I will also recreate this physical box in
POV script, for use in radiosity testing. When it is done, I can see
which of the radiosity techniques actually look the most realistic.

The only trouble is, not everyone could come to my home and see this
in person. I suppose I'll photograph the box, live with the errors
introduced by the photographic process, and post that image to this
news server. That should still be much more objective than the simple
testing currently being done here.

Comments anyone?

Later,
Glen Berry

( Remove the "7" from 7no### [at] ezwvcom to email me. )

Post a reply to this message