Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aipdc
From: aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: good radiosity question
Message-ID: <10556@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 26 May 91 13:38:59 GMT
References: <20917@ogicse.ogi.edu> <1991May26.020248.10869@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Put your analyst on danger money, baby!
Lines: 28

In article <1991May26.020248.10869@milton.u.washington.edu> wiml@milton.u.washington.edu (William Lewis) writes:
[...]
>As I remember most human senses are logarithmic in nature, not linear
[...]
>Try taking the log of the intensity or something before displaying.

Wouldn't this result in the log being taken _twice_?

image 
-- light level --> 
log() 
-- log(light level) --> 
display (which is linear)
-- log(light level) --> 
eye (which takes log)
-- log(log(light level)) -->
brain (which compensates for log somehow)
-- log(light level) -->
percieved light level (now the log of the correct light level)

Seems to me the best thing to do would be to allow your light source to
be massively overexposed -- I think this is what the eye does, and what
a good photographer will do when taking a picture that includes a light
source.
                                         ____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk \  /
/\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
"I could be wrong, I could be right" -- Public Image Ltd.