[HN Gopher] Physically Based Rendering: From Theory to Implement...
___________________________________________________________________
Physically Based Rendering: From Theory to Implementation
Author : alasr
Score : 139 points
Date : 2022-03-17 18:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pbr-book.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pbr-book.org)
| ninkendo wrote:
| "Physically Based" always seemed to be a grammatical error to me.
|
| "Physically" is an adverb, which should modify an adjective or
| verb. So parsing the phrase, "physically based" implies that
| "based" is used as an adjective or verb, which would imply that
| "physically based rendering" is a special form of "based
| rendering", which makes no sense.
|
| "What kind of rendering is it? Based rendering. What kind of
| Based rendering? Well, Physically Based, of course."
|
| It should probably instead be "physics based rendering", right?
|
| Edit: english.stackexchange seems to agree, although it's closed
| as offtopic:
| https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/165416/is-physic...
| blenderdt wrote:
| This book looks really great but also advanced.
|
| If you would like to take some first steps into this domain I can
| recommend Ray Tracing in One Weekend [1]. Not only will you learn
| how to write a path tracer, but it also touches on things like
| motion blur and animation. For me it was one of the best starting
| points because it was very simple to follow.
|
| [1] https://raytracing.github.io/
| tylermw wrote:
| Note: the 4th edition of this book will likely be out by the end
| of this year, and cover GPU pathtracing. (I believe the free web
| edition will be released a few months after the hardback)
|
| The Early Release (still in-development) version of pbrt-v4 can
| be found here:
|
| https://github.com/mmp/pbrt-v4
| aardvark179 wrote:
| Oh excellent. That's something I will definitely look at. I
| remember having a lot of fun with some of the pbr exercises
| many years ago, and haven't had a chance to look at how to this
| sort of stuff efficiently on GPUs.
| going_ham wrote:
| I am eagerly waiting to buy one. I am extremely lucky that I
| took stellar graphics courses during my university years. These
| have by far been the most awesome things that I have done in
| computer science. The high one can get from having a good
| render out of light simulation in immensely pleasing.
|
| If any of you have time to go through the book, go through it
| slowly and carefully. There are a lot of nuances that isn't
| apparent on the first attempt. It is comprehensible to most of
| us. The authors have exclusively marked the chapters that can
| be skipped on the first run. No matter how many times one goes
| through the book, it will still feel like a gem!
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Ahhh, the 2nd rendering bible, together with Eric Veach's thesis:
| https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/veach_thesis/
|
| I've spent my entire life studying this stuff and feel extremely
| lucky on so many levels: that we have these incredible computers
| which can actually do the computation, that we happen to have
| such a powerful theory that can model and even predict visual
| reality, and perhaps most of all, that a single person can learn
| all this stuff and carry it around with them everyday - it's
| really changed how I see the world.
|
| My deepest thanks go to those who have developed and passed all
| this on through their papers and books; it's literally what I'm
| getting the meaning of life from.
| blenderdt wrote:
| What I also think is amazing is that algorithms improve all the
| time. For example the Blender Cycles render engine has been
| rewritten lately. Using the latest knowlegde and algorithms it
| is now more than twice as fast.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Yep, and that design had been presented ages ago[0] already
| by the Finnish geniuses who basically designed Nvidia's ray
| tracing tech[1] (as well as the state of the art in GANs[2]),
| and even implemented in some lesser-known renderers like
| Indigo Renderer :)
|
| These days the most exciting research I think is in path
| guiding and many-light sampling techniques.
|
| [0] https://research.nvidia.com/sites/default/files/pubs/2013
| -07...
|
| [1] https://research.nvidia.com/publication/understanding-
| effici...
|
| [2] https://research.nvidia.com/publication/2021-06_Alias-
| Free-G...
| tcook_sucks_xie wrote:
| If you're interested in PBR in addition to this book I've found
| the filament write up on their method extremely useful too
| https://google.github.io/filament/Filament.md.html
| dddnzzz334 wrote:
| So, can I just start reading this book chapter-by-chapter
| implementing what I learnt in a language of my choice? What is
| the optimal way to go through this book?
| falcolas wrote:
| The one thing to keep in mind is that even though it's written
| in a literate programming style, it's not _in order_. So
| implementation in your own language (say, Rust) is completely
| possible, but it won 't be easy. Especially since the book's
| code is optimized and idiomatic C++, and that can make it
| challenging to get past the borrow checker.
| going_ham wrote:
| Totally, you can do it. But the book is so huge that you will
| miss most of the details. However, you can use it as reference.
| First follow the ray tracing in one weekend to get the overall
| idea of path tracing. Then you can start with PBRT.
|
| As for language of choice, anything will be fine. The book will
| build up a solid foundation. The only thing that can stop you
| is the amount of frustration which you may face when not
| figuring out the things. It can be confusing at times, but
| please give your time and let it sink in. After sometimes, you
| can review it with a completely fresh eyes and you may fix a
| lot of issues!
|
| Goodluck!
| magicalhippo wrote:
| One of the best technical books I've read. A lot of books on the
| subject are math heavy but lacking in implementation detail,
| others gloss over the math and implement the easy stuff.
|
| This book has a great mix IMHO, going into the math as well as
| tricky implementation details yet in a very approachable manner.
|
| Lots of great times were had as a result of this book.
| dannyz wrote:
| I always love seeing PBR here. I work in atmospheric science, in
| particular modelling of radiation in the atmosphere, and the
| equations that we use are identical to that of PBR. The main
| difference is that in the atmosphere you are more concerned with
| processes along the ray, e.g. Rayleigh scattering, clouds, or
| absorption/emission from trace species in the atmosphere, while
| in rendering it is all about surface effects.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-17 23:00 UTC)