3 ms·

How does this compare to Physical Based Rendering [0]? [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_based_rendering https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical

• 317070 5y ago
  For one, it will be a lot faster to compute. For two, it is a lot less laborious work to set up, which does not scale with the size of the world like PBR, but only with performance. So where previously, you needed a lot of designers to make a big world look realistic with PBR, now you need to collect a big dataset with the style you want to have, and apply it to your game. I suspect that will scale differently.
• dahart 5y ago
  FWIW, I think it doesn’t compare to PBR - these are two completely different things, and there’s no reason you can’t do both. Maybe as a simple example of that, it’s common today to run a NN based denoiser on top of a physically based path traced rendering. This neural network operates on images - input is image and output is image. Note that it cannot synthesize an image from scratch, it can only take an image and make it look more like the lighting in it’s training set. PBR is a technique for taking a 3d scene description and synthesizing an image, so for PBR you need models and lighting and materials, and even with physically based techniques it might still come out not completely realistic looking. There’s always room to emulate realistic subtleties of texture, lighting, camera lenses, video/film response, outdoor colors, atmosphere, etc.