Talk:Ambient occlusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] diffuse only

This picture needs shadows to illustrate the point better, even though this isn't an article about shadows. It looks wrong without them, and they would be used in a real-life application. Same with the combined picture. Erudecorp 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically the combined picture has shadows... shadows are simply the consequence of an occluded light source. In the combined image a spherical light source is correctly occluded by the bug geometry. I'm guessing you're referring to shadows from a highly directional light source, though I'm not convinced this is a relevant comparison here. (Convince me that it is! :) Trevorgoodchild 01:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That is what I'm referring to. I don't think you'll need any convincing once you see what I mean. The second picture (diffuse only) uses a directional light (or two). But no shadows (occlusion, like you said). So the third image only gets shadows from the sky box, not from the directional light. It's also odd that the third image is darker, even though it has two lighting models. It think the maker of the images put them into Photoshop as two layers, and multiplied them, instead of screening them. It's true that the spherical light source is occluded, but not the directional light. The person that made the original set of images hasn't done anything since 2005. Can you remake the three images? Erudecorp ? * 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)