"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlnet> wrote:

>
> Without any understanding of the physical properties behind the whole
> discussion (and I want to keep it so!), I would definitely say 1.0
>
> For me, 2.0 is too dark; the terminator line is at the wrong place (Too far
> to the right) for a very distant light source.

Thanks for the input.
I guess I haven't said so yet here--my vote is for 2.0. Especially as to the
grey bands.

BTW, one of the fellows over at the main gamma discussion posted a url to a
school Professor's site describing why a half moon in a dark sky actually
looks like the 1.0 image. As the Professor describes it,  that's
misleading; lots of odd things contribute to that.

In and of itself, it's an interesting read...
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm

But also posted there is a CGI image of an "ideal lambertian" sphere (I
hope I've said that right), lit from the side, very similar to my sphere.
(He compares its apperance with that of the moon.)  AFAIK, POV uses the
same, rather simple "lambertian" diffuse lighting formula for
creating light/object interaction...and his image looks like my 2.0 image.

Ken Walker

Post a reply to this message