[Bf-cycles] build with OSL support

[Yasuhiro Fujii]

The patch is updated (Patch updating information is not automatically mailed?).

0. Adapted for trunk.
1. Diffuse and O-N node are unified.
http://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=29193&group_id=9&atid=127


On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Yasuhiro Fujii
<y-fujii at mimosa-pudica.net> wrote:
> Additionally, there is a reason to use uniform sampler, not
> cos-weighted sampler.
> For example, when
>    (eye vector) == (light vector) && (eye vector) dot (surface normal) == 0,
> lambert value is 0.0 but O-N value is not 0.0.
> Therefore, I think O-N cannot be sampled correctly with cos-weighted sampler.
> We can write a advanced O-N specific sampler, but I think it is
> overkill for the 1st implementation.
>
> I'm not a renderer expert, suggestions are welcome.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Yasuhiro Fujii
> <y-fujii at mimosa-pudica.net> wrote:
>> Yes, they converge to the same value. however, difffuse() uses
>> cosine-weighted importance sampler while my oren_nayar() currently
>> uses uniform sampler, they have different variances. (Sorry for my
>> poor English skill...)
>>
>> After night's sleep, I started to think that it is a technical detail,
>> it can be resolved later when it becomes a problem.
>> OK, I will change the patch to unify diffuse() and oren_nayar().
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Brecht Van Lommel
>> <brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:
>>> I think it should converge to the same result when roughness is zero?
>>> At least in blender internal this seems to be the case. Also, looking
>>> at your code: when sigma = 0, we get m_a = 1 and m_b = 0. As a result,
>>> all that is left is nl/M_PI, i.e. a regular diffuse BSDF?
>>>
>>> Brecht.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Yasuhiro Fujii
>>> <y-fujii at mimosa-pudica.net> wrote:
>>>> pros:
>>>> + Simplify the UI.
>>>> + Simplify the code.
>>>>
>>>> cons:
>>>> + oren_nayar() and diffuse() have different convergence behavior even
>>>> if roughness == 0.0, yield very different looks if convergence is not
>>>> sufficient. In some scene, designers may want to choose oren_nayar()
>>>> even if roughness == 0.0.
>>>> + Thus users must know roughness = 0.0 is specialized.
>>>>
>>>> I can't decide it because of my poor experience, especially designer's side.
>>>> What do you think about their cons?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Brecht Van Lommel
>>>> <brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about implement this as a Roughness input for the
>>>>> Diffuse BSDF node, instead of a separate one? Internally it can still
>>>>> be a separate closure/BSDF, but it could just check if(roughness ==
>>>>> 0.0) diffuse() else oren_nayar().
>>>>>
>>>>> Brecht.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Yasuhiro Fujii
>>>>> <y-fujii at mimosa-pudica.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The O-N patch must be updated, however, the compile errors don't seem
>>>>>> to be caused by this patch. I guess that they are due to tomato branch
>>>>>> merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blender's source (including cycles) will be changed a lot this week,
>>>>>> due to a Branch Merger hurricane week:
>>>>>> http://www.blendernation.com/2011/11/07/developer-meeting-notes-november-6-2011/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will update the patch when cycles get to be able to compile again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-cycles mailing list
>>>>> Bf-cycles at blender.org
>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-cycles mailing list
>>>> Bf-cycles at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-cycles mailing list
>>> Bf-cycles at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>>>
>>
>