4.1 - WHO Changed Rendering Forever

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 14 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 15

  • @russCoding
    @russCoding Рік тому +3

    What a great video. Thank you for taking the time to talk about these aspects in technical depth.

  • @timfuchs3185
    @timfuchs3185 Рік тому +2

    Great video! Beautiful explanations!

  • @vladkostin7557
    @vladkostin7557 Рік тому +8

    Me: "World Health Organisation changed rendering forever? Wow, interesting, I have to watch!"

    • @vladkostin7557
      @vladkostin7557 Рік тому

      In my defence I didn't get enough sleep tonight XD

    • @dragosbotcau
      @dragosbotcau Рік тому

      don't appologise, i came to make the same joke.
      @@vladkostin7557

    • @markitekta2766
      @markitekta2766  Рік тому

      It might be an interesting topic for the future, great suggestion, even though it came from a lack of sleep 🙂

    • @markitekta2766
      @markitekta2766  Рік тому

      @googleuser2413 If World Health Organization is what drew you to it, sorry for this. WHO is just all caps to specifiy where the emphasis is, having Turner Whitted and James Kajiya in the thumbnail 🙂

  • @Nerthexx
    @Nerthexx Рік тому

    Maybe you know the answer. I've implemented atmospheric scattering once, and optimized it using precomputation. Looks fine, performance is great. But I've been scratching my head for some time how to get multi-scattering to work. In my understanding, when we march a ray through a volume of atmosphere, we need to account not only for sun-ray direction, but just all directions in general. Some optimizations actually reuse the single-scattering LUT (texture with pre-calculated scattered light based on height and azimuth angle) to generate the light bounces. Would be good to know how I should approach it. At least, integrating it during a naive raymarching approach. If you know, just assuming.

    • @markitekta2766
      @markitekta2766  Рік тому

      @Nerthexx, unfortunately, I do not know, perhaps someone else in the community will chip in. Thank you for expanding the conversation in this direction as well :-)

  • @benedictsforester7045
    @benedictsforester7045 Рік тому +1

    First image isn't realistic because of the wood texture on the round object. The grains are all from one direction both on top and sides. In second spoon lacks grunge imperfections map for such a closeup shot. Amazing renders tho. Without context would be very hard to tell if it's a photo or not

    • @benedictsforester7045
      @benedictsforester7045 Рік тому +3

      Oh my god I've been fooled

    • @markitekta2766
      @markitekta2766  Рік тому +1

      Thank you for taking time to engage with the question. 🙂 Yes, in order to show how people can have a biased opinion when arguing from a conclusion regarding realistic renders, this was a nice way to test whether other people consider this to be true as well. Your responce for the first photo has weight, other people have noticed other things too, because they were looking for it. Spot on analysis for the second render, kudos 🙂

    • @markitekta2766
      @markitekta2766  Рік тому

      @@benedictsforester7045 Fooled, but in a fun way I hope 🙂