Indeed; both the diffraction spikes and the lens flare rings. I feel about them as a bit kitschy because, basically, it is just an added effect and a bit too glib to my taste - not least because I am still not satisfied with the light and glow itself.Meneldur Olvarion wrote:By "kitchy effects" do you mean the star-like diffraction spikes?Lúthien wrote:[...] This is a first attempt and I could not resist adding those kitchy effects to the halo, so please forgive me
What I mean is - you know, something like when people want to visualise a romantic scene and they use this soft-focus effect ... used very sparingly, those effects can indeed contribute to an image but it is so easily overdone.
Oh yes, that IS true. But I think I'll try and visualise that with a little bit less "bling"Meneldur Olvarion wrote:They are in the original source description:
J.R.R. Tolkien in '[i]The Coming Of The Valar And The Building Of Valinor[/i]', Lost Tales, vol. I wrote:[...] and its blossoms did not hang in clusters but were like separate flowers growing each on fine stems that swung together, and were as silver and pearls and glittering stars and burnt with a white light
The flowers aren't in there yet anyhow.
I'd say that at a certain distance range it seems to be like intensity x distance. But indeed that cannot just go on like that; from a certain distance the luminosity does indeed start to decrease with distance.Meneldur Olvarion wrote:
In the standard equation for EM radiation intensity, Intensity ∝ 1/distance²
But as we've both noticed, what we're observing in the Imaginal is closer to Intensity ∝ distance², but as your analogy to the strong force points out, the equation is probably not that simple -- perhaps a limiting function has to be applied to the exponent?
For the point and spot lights, yes: see the manual page about it on http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2 ... ttenuationMeneldur Olvarion wrote:Can Blender vary these parameters? If not, i know that Mathematica can; to get the basic equation, or for test cases numeric solutions.
There are quite a lot of options available. Maybe the most interesting one for this use is "custom curve".
I made a quick test of a plane with a few cubes, illuminated by a point light that has a bell falloff curve, starting from nothing, increasing to a maximum at a certain distance, and falling back to nothing further away again.
The light itself is (as always) invisible, but it is above the center of the light ring:
I think that that approach might work quite well indeed. The only limitation is that these customized falloff settings apply to point and spot lights only, not to indirect lighting by luminous objects (such as in my previous post with the luminous leaves).Meneldur Olvarion wrote:What I'm thinking is that if you can find the right exponent by comparing your memories of visual images for different values of the exponent, we may be able to get a more accurate idea of what may be going on (I have an idea that this may be related to cognitive 'reception', but I don't have enough data to form a non-trivial postulate).
What might work very well is to use indirect lighting with the leaves, and add one of those custom falloff lights to every flower. The leaves would then illuminate the direct surroundings of the mound, but the light of the blossoms would carry far and illuminate the whole scene.
That actually sounds quite good ... I like it.