## Veach thesis - formula question

Practical and theoretical implementation discussion.
spectral
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:27 pm
Contact:

### Veach thesis - formula question

Hi all,

I'm currently looking at the Veach thesis and at the page 223 there is the following formula :
path_formulation_example.png
where
geometric_term.png
What is surprising me in this example is that the light is attenuated by the distance... of course it is normal to use G(x0 -> x1) (To convert the emission from the whole light source surface to the point x1).

But I don't understand why we continue to use G for the point x2 ? (and not simply use the solid-angle instead) ?

Thx

ingenious
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:11 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

Because this function is integrated with (product) area measure, not solid angle measure. When you estimate that integral using Monte Carlo, and sample path vertices in a random walk via directional sampling, the pdfs of the resulting vertices, when converted to the area measure, have the same G term, which then cancels out. The conversion from solid angle to area measure is given by formula (8.10), which includes most of the terms in G.

spectral
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:27 pm
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

Thanks Ingenious,

It mean that if I move my camera at (by example) 10x the current distance, the image will become darker ? (because G(x2->x3)) ?!!

ingenious
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:11 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

spectral wrote:It mean that if I move my camera at (by example) 10x the current distance, the image will become darker ? (because G(x2->x3)) ?!!
Whether the image will become darker depends on what you're looking at If you're looking at a diffuse surface with a wider extent than your viewing frustum, the image won't become darker. The path throughput, i.e. the inner part of f_j(x), without Le and We, will become smaller, and thus the whole f_j(x) will be smaller for a single path. But then also We (the camera importance function) will have larger support, so "more paths" will contribute to the image, and you'll get the same brightness in the end.

spectral
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:27 pm
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

Thanks,

I have miss the "We" term, but how to compute it ?

ingenious
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:11 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

spectral wrote:I have miss the "We" term, but how to compute it ?
That's your pixel filter. You don't need to do anything special. When the camera moves back, it sees more points, hence the larger support of We. In another thread, I gave a link to Dietger's notes on sampling techniques, which covers bidirectional path tracing.

spectral
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:27 pm
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

I have also take a look in pbrt and Dietger thesis (very well explained).
Everything is clear now... and even easy. This formulation sounds very practical... I'll give some try...

Thanks

ingenious
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:11 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

spectral wrote:This formulation sounds very practical...
And it is extremely useful and insightful theoretically. Not that many people appreciate it though.

spectral
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:27 pm
Contact:

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

Sure,

What's useful is that we can separate the rendering integral in several one, so we can mix them and solve each with different technique !
I even have some ideas for my own algorithm and constraint

It will be funny to play with

Thanks

Igors
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:56 am

### Re: Veach thesis - formula question

The G formula is a simplified solid angle calculation. But it works well only if light "far enough" (comparing to light area). If x-difference is small it does not produce correct results