Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v8m6up$3kkjg$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Misc: Applications of small floating point formats. Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 21:20:25 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 43 Message-ID: <v8m6up$3kkjg$2@dont-email.me> References: <v8ehgr$1q8sr$1@dont-email.me> <v8eloq$1qs1a$1@dont-email.me> <v8flo3$23t8l$1@dont-email.me> <v8h4iv$2e5g0$4@dont-email.me> <v8h8hv$2epjk$1@dont-email.me> <v8hg7p$2k3mm$1@dont-email.me> <v8hok5$2lec3$1@dont-email.me> <v8hruh$2m1tt$1@dont-email.me> <v8hv6d$2mklf$1@dont-email.me> <v8i709$2o7ho$1@dont-email.me> <v8jsbj$32llf$3@dont-email.me> <v8k2ld$37juv$1@dont-email.me> <v8kfcu$39ic7$2@dont-email.me> <v8ko4j$3br9u$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 23:20:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="461a22efc661e416b053d4dcc2a44527"; logging-data="3822192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18n6FU5tlTq6Av9jx+ElkF6" User-Agent: Pan/0.159 (Vovchansk; ) Cancel-Lock: sha1:si/gKNZqqr8jji/z3J0yLffxiuc= Bytes: 3163 On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 03:01:16 -0500, BGB wrote: > On 8/3/2024 12:32 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > > But, what I am saying is, a lot of stuff doesn't need raytracing. Like I said, there are non-raytraced renderers inspired by video-game engines. They don’t use OpenGL. And it does take extra tricks (e.g. things called “light probes”) to get realistic-looking lighting with them. > Movies and similar often use raytracing, but a lot of stuff doesn't need > it. One can often tell visually what is or is not raytracing. In the hands of skilled practitioners, it’s very likely you can’t. You probably can’t even tell which scenes, or parts of scenes, are CG and which are actual physical sets. > Also, sometimes raytracing doesn't work out ideal either: > > https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmZhZGU2Y2QtYjc2NC00MzE5LWE3OGItMTFmOGU4NzVjM2YyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg > > https://m.media-amazon.com/images/S/pv-target-images/ccbc22354235eb619e2ad63c56a7c89bdee327fb1e7a2cf0b965c91b2e5336cc.jpg The usual ray-tracing artifacts are called “fireflies” (random bright dots in the image). I don’t see them there. Are you complaining about the images being deliberately grungy? > There is now RTX, which can do hardware raytracing. RTX is a joke. It does maybe one or two rays per pixel, and then covers up the artifacts with heavy use of denoising. >> It takes a bit more than cel-shading to get a good 2D look with 3D >> software. >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmSdY56VtY> > > Possibly, but this is not typical from what I have seen. Even more “not typical”: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqD4xcbEuE>. Check out that Dédouze guy; his work is just amazing.