"omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
>
> Well, let's think about it here.
>
[snip]
> Or so I believe. Seems the more I talk the less sense I make to myself, possibly
> everyone else too!
>

Ha! No worries; your comments are definitely helping me to think more deeply
about this phenomenon. And to modify my own theories ;-)

In your laser code, I'm now using   absorption 2*<0,1,1>  instead of emission,
to see the effect more clearly. I think I understand what you're getting at, re:
the media 'filtering' the hexagonal background colors. What I see is that green
and blue are now BLACK (as would be expected from 'absorbing' those colors),
whereas the RED hexagons are unaffected, and show though the media-- because
there's a zero in the media's red color vector (no absorption there.)

I'm still a bit unconvinced as to whether the 'black' in this example can be
thought of as actual *opacity*, or whether it is solely a filtering effect of
the background. I think it's the latter-- but the end result *looks* the same
regardless, 'cause black is black!

I'm still formulating my theory... ;-)

> Where I get most confused is that factoring in of background colors, which I
> think always remain additive (emitting) or subtractive (absorbing)
> regardless of the media itself.

I think that's true, when using a SINGLE media. But when two types of media are
used (like emission + absorption), it gets a bit trickier-- and seems to depend
on their own respective colors.

Post a reply to this message