[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 ;-))
Yves
More information about the Bf-committers
mailing list