sajis997, I mean that the caustic is much more visible. I personally think that's a good thing.
yiningkarlli, in the image identified as the "direct lighting only" image (http://imgur.com/EdZ0yza) there is a visible diffuse component to the material.
Search found 89 matches
- Mon May 27, 2013 2:11 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
- Thu May 16, 2013 11:55 am
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
Re: artifacts - any idea
It looks OK to me. I also note that your elephant has a more pronounced caustic. More importantly, what do you think?
- Mon May 13, 2013 5:16 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
Re: artifacts - any idea
In a pinch, I think if(generated random number < refractivity coefficient) { Get a refracted ray. refractedColor = trace(refracted ray, depth -1, 1 /* formerly 0 */); } else if(generated random number < reflectivity coefficient) { Get the reflected ray. reflectedColor = trace(reflected ray, depth - ...
- Thu May 09, 2013 8:49 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
Re: artifacts - any idea
OK, let me put it this way. It looks to me like you're not getting a specular reflection of the light source in the mirror ball. That is, LSE paths (light -> mirror -> eye) are not showing up in your rendering. LDSE paths are showing up (light -> ceiling -> mirror ->eye), so you wind up with a dark ...
- Thu May 09, 2013 7:01 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
Re: artifacts - any idea
Given that, along with the fact that the specular materials are effectively removed from your direct lighting calculations, wouldn't ... else if(generated random number < reflectivity coefficient) { Get the reflected ray. reflectedColor = trace(reflected ray, depth - 1, 0); } mean no specular highli...
- Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
Re: artifacts - any idea
When computing indirect illumination, what happens when one of your secondary rays from a diffuse material happens to hit a light source? Is it possible that you are doubling up on your direct illumination? One quick experiment might be to double the intensity of your light source, omit direct illum...
- Wed May 08, 2013 12:46 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: artifacts - any idea
- Replies: 15
- Views: 10384
Re: artifacts - any idea
Offhand it looks like your LSE (possibly LS(S|D)*E) paths are broken. How are you calculating direct lighting on specular surfaces? If you're doing explicit connections to the light source (e.g., picking a point on the source, casting a shadow ray, and evaluating the BSDF), then the specular compone...
- Thu May 02, 2013 4:41 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: emitted importance function
- Replies: 4
- Views: 4205
Re: emitted importance function
Importance is a necessity for any renderer that traces more than one bounce after tracing a ray from the camera. For example, in a simple path tracer, the "weight" of an eye subpath is accumulated importance divided by the accumulated pdf. At each bounce, the importance is reduced by the BRDF and th...
- Wed May 01, 2013 4:38 pm
- Forum: General Development
- Topic: emitted importance function
- Replies: 4
- Views: 4205
Re: emitted importance function
Without the We term, W(x,w) would just be zero (since some nonzero portion of light hitting a reflective surface would be absorbed). Importance is basically what portion of reflected or emitted light from a surface contributes to a rendered image. In a path-/ray-tracer We(x,w) should generally only ...