Can be roughly approximated jarzeniГіwki by an LED panel to area sources. But the problem I have no

Somehow, in all the books and articles are very dashing "trim fable" about the rule of inverse squares, with reference to the fall of light as the distance jarzeniГіwki increases, forgetting that this rule works in a pure form only for point sources of light. And for the soft boxes are different. But how - "otherwise"? Who do I talk intelligibly, jarzeniГіwki as described by the dependence of the illumination of the distance to area sources?
And, yes, also mirrored reflections obey this rule in general is very tricky, so that the luminosity at a particular point reflex does not depend on the distance from the source. But with the reflexes of all very easily explained by analogy with a bucket of paint and paint the problem jarzeniГіwki with the same volume of different areas :)
Why sources of law for the square jarzeniГіwki to be different? Between the light source and the illuminated object is still the same air. A source itself must be regarded as a set of point light sources arranged in a square. For example, a bunch of LEDs on a rectangular plate - is a set of point light sources or a square?
Can be roughly approximated jarzeniГіwki by an LED panel to area sources. But the problem I have not invented himself, anywhere jarzeniГіwki in the theoretical papers on the physics jarzeniГіwki of light writing, with the proviso that the area source illumination depending on the distance calculated differently than for a point. Edited at 2013-08-24 08:01 (UTC)
You know, when you went from a point source at 5cm, you went to 5cm, all is clear. And when you went from a certain point of the extended source at 5 cm, then nothing is clear. Can you at this point to another just approached.
Would agree with this statement, if the surface of the soft box would have a path and uneven, but samosvetimostyu. And so - just diffuse scattering, nothing more. Another obstacle in the way of a point source of light.
And air - not isotropic obstacle. But we do not get coverage from the flash (bulbs), namely the scattering surface. Can be complicated, of course (see, as the light passes through the lens, etc.), but it will be easier to consider the very surface of the software as a light source. The result is not too different.
And what difference does it make? Neither we nor any of our models have never seen soft boxes as lenses, for us they are a source of light with an area equal to the length X width. In the same way we perceive the moon as almost a point source, although it is in fact a big reflector. To the observer, but its angular diameter is very small, but the fact that she does not shine, does not affect its consideration as a source of light on the practice.
Well this is the case :) There it turns out that: 1. Prior to a specific point of the illuminated surface of the path of the rays Starlite angle will be greater than from the center. 2. In this case, according to the standard model of Lambert-light rays from the edges of the soft box will fall on the same point of the object at a more acute angle, which will give even less coverage. In fact, for me, is now the most important question - how do legally to simplify all the stupid jarzeniГіwki rules of inverse squares, including working jarzeniГіwki with the areal studio sources such as soft boxes or trays. Because the reader an extra load theory can always, as far as it is justified - as long as it's not clear.
Well, yes. But I always want to hear more opinions on the part of his brain and "roll with the pusher." It is a lot of ideas, as well as points of view. And the book is not written in a table, and a lot of work still, multi-pass method for improving the text will show its worth :)
Of course, jarzeniГіwki physically for any soft-box is nearly a point source in the form of a flash bulb. But in practical terms, any lens, if it is well dissipates, it is possible and must be regarded as an area source. And this "simplification" and it is currently working in 3D visualization, which mimic the soft boxes due to area lights, that is, area sources of light: The problem is that in all my descriptions of the available inverse square law states jarzeniГіwki that the distance that the law was clean works only for point sources. For that bought this thing is selling. But we want to understand exactly how the light fall-off is described for area sources.
Why, a time when 3D was based on simplified and lightened the laws are long gone. To create many illustrations for upcoming book I'm using the system Maxwell jarzeniГіwki Render, which is based on a physically correct jarzeniГіwki lighting model, without averaging and approximations. Until the wave phenomena - diffraction, dispersion. Actually, for this precision fizmodeli they take ye for a license in 1000. And as to the physical correctness of rendering Maxwell I did not have any questions.
Ohoho. =:) Well, I do not know what's crammed, but my old feelings, jarzeniГіwki all of this "realistic" Render never lacked realism because of significant simplifications and simulations of the process, for the very napryazhno in the computational part of the Sun