Patrick Elliott <sha### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Not to complain, but media is confusing and complicated, while a
> subsurface scattering algorithm would just do what it was designed for
> and would thus likely be less complicated to use. Also, while I have
> heard lots of claims about how it could be done with media, I am not sure
> there is any examples of it being used with organics or other similar
> situations where the effect needs to be fairly depth limited and
> specific, but the shape of the object doesn't lend itself well to just
> stuffing it full of media and hoping it doesn't have any leaks. Something
> less container specific would be better for such models, if for no other
> reason than to save time in designing and debugging. I am not sure you
> can really call it a useless or redundant feature for these reasons, but
> that is just my opinion.

I've tried different examples with different configurations, made by me and
also taken from the past messages.

I can say the following:

- the results that can be reached seems very poor, and in any case are only
a rough approximation of BSSRDF real results;

- results can be easily approximated for simple / not_to_much_complicated
objects, but for complicated objects it seems difficult to attach a proper
media (for example using a density based on extrusion with negative offset
of object itslef that must produce sub-surface scattering... this only an
idea, but I don't know if it's appliable);

- a simpler interior description specific for BSSRDF, or similar effects /
algorithms is desiderable.

For these reasons I agree with Patrick. But these are only my opinions...
Maybe I've simply been unable to find an efficent and perfect way to
implement BSSRDF through povray.

Antonio Ferrari

Post a reply to this message