[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)