3 ms·
You can. It's just very costly. Rays typically represent just a single sample, so the more probabilistic the projected image becomes (read "unfocused"), the mor
by joshuak 6y ago
You can. It's just very costly. Rays typically represent just a single sample, so the more probabilistic the projected image becomes (read "unfocused"), the more samples are required to capture it smoothly. This is compounded by the number of lens elements, the material's index of refraction and other complexities. A single element lens adds a minimum of two additional ray/surface evaluations for every sample of which their are many per pixel.
Also, as a separate matter many implementations optimize around the assumption that the projection from three dimensions to two is done in a uniform, undistorted space. For example the kind of projection that can be fully described by a 4x4 matrix. Changing that assumption loses those optimizations, and generally leads to substance abuse and mayhem.
- xwdv 6y agoIs unfocused light in real life actually probabilistic?
- nielsbot 6y agoI thought all light transfer was probabilistic. (You should read Feynman's QED for more)
- xwdv 6y agoIt would make sense.
- andbberger 6y agoYes. But probabilistic isn't the word I would use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
- layoutIfNeeded 6y agoNo. Bokeh can be perfectly described with classical optics.