Ray tracing, regarding Turner Whitted's original paper

alan_k
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
As many of you may know, ray tracing was first introduced by Turner Whitted in 1979 in a paper titled "An improved illumination model for shaded display" (can be found on ACM digital library).

On the 2nd page, in part 2 (Improved Model) there are a number of fairly simple vector calculations, unfortunately I can't understand what is vector V' (please refer to the attached screenshot), and why is it scaled by | V . N | ... I would like to ask for your thoughts on this :)

Thanks !

P.S.: unfortunately I can't attach the paper to my post, it is copyrighted by ACM and I think it would be illegal to do so.

EDIT: found a link to the paper from Drexel University here
 

Attachments

  • whitted.JPG
    whitted.JPG
    18.6 KB · Views: 515
Physics news on Phys.org
The diagram shows you the vector (N + V'), as the "horizontal" dotted line ending at the top of the N vector.

So V' is the third side of the triangle with the other two sides N and (N+V'). Ini other words, V' is the V vector scaled to be the same "vertical height" as N.

Earller N was defined as the unit vector (i.e. its length=1) normal to the surface.

So |V.N| is the length of V, times the cosine of the angle between V and N.
 
Hi AlephZero,

Thank you so much for your reply, I appreciate it.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top