[Bf-committers] From Farsthary another anouncement

Yves Poissant ypoissant2 at videotron.ca
Thu Feb 5 03:27:30 CET 2009

From: "Matt Ebb" <matt at mke3.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:02 PM

> Well, I agree with that to an extent but not fully. There's always a
> need to tweak things, either in shaders or in comp, and it's still
> extremely useful to have custom shading ability (programmable shaders,
> nodes, whatever).

I agree. And there is non-photo-realistic renders too. I don't see 
photorealistic material as non-tweakable. I just see them as easier to 
tweak. At least, when you do a metal, you can always be sure that it will 
look like metal for instance. And whatever the materials you place in your 
scene, even if you tweak them, they will never look out of this world. They 
will always look well babanced relative to the other objects in the scene 
and well lit. That is still that much that you don't have to worry about. 
Physically plausible materials are easier to learn to tweak because their 
properties are sitting on real world physical material properties that are 
logic, easy to explain and easy to understand. You can still design 
unrealistic materials that are still physically plausible. Say a layered 
material with the top layer having very dense property and an IOR of 4 for 
instance. That would be unrealistic but still physically plausible. I would 
even sugggest that once a BRDF class is properly implemented, ther is no 
limit as to what the actual implementation could do. Even break the 
physically plausibility if that is required (and watch the renderer melt 
down ;-))


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list