3 ms·
I think people rather think of ray-tracing as much better motivated by physics ( and intuition) compared to all the complicated matrices in raster engines. Inst
by yk 14y ago
I think people rather think of ray-tracing as much better motivated by physics ( and intuition) compared to all the complicated matrices in raster engines. Instead of thinking it is superior because of some demos.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoAn even more physics based rendering method is called radiosity, but it's also hugely computationally intensive.
- Tloewald 14y agoPhysically Based Rendering - often GPU accelerated - is the new thing -- check out Octane Renderer, Lux-Render, Indigo, the Cycles renderer in Blender. These renderers start at the light source and stochastically generate and follow photons. Like a digital camera they suffer from noise :-)
- raverbashing 14y ago"These renderers start at the light source and stochastically generate and follow photons." Yes, that's similar to ray tracing, but going 'backwards' Rasterizing is certainly faster, requiring more work in the 'intelligence' of scene assembly. With raytracing (or physics rendering) you have lights, objects 'naturally interacting' with each other so shadows, reflection, radiosity comes ""automatically"" (still hard to do) With rasterizing you have triangles with different colors, and it's up to you to paint them accordingly.