home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Light ROM 4
/
Light ROM 4 - Disc 1.iso
/
text
/
maillist
/
1995
/
1095.doc
/
001668_owner-lightwav…mail.webcom.com_Tue Oct 31 01:00:50 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-11-07
|
2KB
Received: by mail.webcom.com
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA290410050; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:00:50 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com>
Received: from minnie.risd.edu ([192.190.22.2]) by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA290300040; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 01:00:41 -0800
Received: by minnie.risd.edu; id AA27278; Tue, 31 Oct 1995 03:57:09 -0500
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 03:57:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Angell <jangell@risd.edu>
Subject: Re: Refraction?
To: Chris Purdie <topher@fox.nstn.ca>
Cc: lightwave@mail.webcom.com
In-Reply-To: <199510301803.OAA23059@Fox.NSTN.Ca>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9510310310.E26214-0100000@minnie.risd.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-lightwave@mail.webcom.com
Precedence: bulk
> Does the Refractive Index value entered itself have any effect on
> rendering times? I mean, I know it takes longer then no refraction, but
> does a setting of 1.5 render faster then a setting of 2.0? Or even 1.1
> render faster then 1.2? Any great amount?
I think it says so in the manual somewhere -- the higher the index of
refraction (IOR), the longer the render will take. I bet it's beacuse with
a > IOR, LW has to compute more parts of the scene that could be
refracted through it, since it bens more light. Just a guess, though...
-- Joe
--
Joe Angell <jangell@risd.edu> sent this message.
To Post a Message : lightwave@webcom.com
Un/Subscription Requests To : lightwave-request@webcom.com
(DIGEST) or : lightwave-digest-request@webcom.com
Administrative Items To : owner-lightwave@webcom.com