Timeline for Radiosity VS Ray tracing
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2019 at 17:55 | comment | added | Engineer | What I'm not clear on is what the difference is between EDL vs ED*L? Is EDL not multiplicative? | |
| Oct 13, 2015 at 18:23 | vote | accept | Armfoot | ||
| Aug 27, 2015 at 10:22 | comment | added | Armfoot | I was trying to make a little joke when I mentioned E{2} @Pseudonym but thanks for further explaining why it's a single path and the reason behind it :) | |
| Aug 27, 2015 at 10:14 | comment | added | Armfoot | Thanks again Ecir, I get your point: if we can have a lot more with one method, it's kind of pointless to pursue another if we don't know exactly how better it will perform. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 21:34 | comment | added | Pseudonym | @Armfoot The notation doesn't use E{2} for the same reason that it doesn't use L{n} for multiple lights. This describes a single path, or a single sample. The way that we normally formalise Monte Carlo rendering is to take the Kajiya rendering equation, and then turn it into a random variable, the expected value of which is the solution to the equation. You can then calculate the value of a pixel by taking lots of samples and estimating the mean. Light paths more or less correspond to Feynman diagrams. | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 21:19 | comment | added | Ecir Hana | @Armfoot I would definitely go with path tracing. Lots of research, books, code to learn from. I don't know which would be faster, though, too many variables (acceleration structure, shading system, ...). Radiosity apparently simulates the heat propagation after splitting the scene into many tiny triangles (FEM), I never tried it and the only product to used it I know of was Autodesk Lightscape. Last but not least, are you really sure you will ever need only diffuse reflections? | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 21:10 | comment | added | Ecir Hana | @NathanReed I asked about it at ompf2 and ingenious says: "The only type of light paths that a forward path tracer cannot sample is E(D|G)*S+L, where L is a light source whose definition involves a delta distribution, either in the directional emission or the positional. Examples are point lights and directional lights. Such paths can be described using Veach's extended notation for luminaires and sensors, see section 8.3.2 in his thesis." | |
| Aug 26, 2015 at 1:17 | comment | added | Armfoot | Thanks Ecir for the explanation (specially the regex... I wonder if they ever considered E{2} for both eyes ;). When I mentioned "ray tracing" I was kind of quoting the tutorial of Cornell University, they didn't mention any specific technique, that's why I was doubting if radiosity was a type or partly belonged to ray tracing. So if you were to create a diffuse reflection, would you choose path-tracing over radiosity? Why (which one would be more efficient)? | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 22:20 | comment | added | Nathan Reed | The notation for path tracing suggests that it can't handle paths like ES*L but of course it can if they are area lights (not punctual lights). Plus, I think that statement in your reference [2] is just plain wrong. Path tracing doesn't ignore caustics; it's just not very efficient at them (photon mapping, Metropolis, VCM etc. are better). | |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 22:00 | history | edited | Ecir Hana | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 3 characters in body |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 16:54 | history | edited | Ecir Hana | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 288 characters in body |
| Aug 25, 2015 at 16:47 | history | answered | Ecir Hana | CC BY-SA 3.0 |