3 ms·
Side note: there's a recent push towards "physically based rendering" (in games; film folks have made that a few years ago). This means making light behave in a
by aras_p 13y ago
Side note: there's a recent push towards "physically based rendering" (in games; film folks have made that a few years ago). This means making light behave in a physically plausible way. This is different from "photo realistic rendering".
Probably best example is Pixar's rendering style - it's not "realistic", but it is very much at the forefront of "physically based".
- tomlu 13y agoThis is partially because of difficulty of debugging a completely ad-hoc pipeline. When you have 50 moving parts and the final image doesn't look right, it's hard to know where the problem is. Instead, you try to make each part adhere to "reality" by making them "physically based", thus enabling objective testing.
- aras_p 13y agoYes. It can also be cheaper to make, since the same material can look good under more different lighting conditions. So an artist can make the textures & material once and it will mostly look "correct" when put in anywhere. As opposed to older ad-hoc models where often in a different lighting setup at least some parts had to be redone. Just wanted to make a distinction between "physically based/plausible" and "photorealistic", since I've seen both being mixed up a lot of times.
- gavanwoolery 13y agoGood point - I agree that we can learn a lot from the way realistic lighting works in order to produce stylistic results. For example, I do a bit of radiosity which is sort of physically correct but not nearly enough samples to be accurate, and it is done in screen space. Even though it is a far cry from "realistic", it does add a lot visually IMHO.