[Bf-cycles] Future of the non-progressive renderer and Cycles strand rendering

[Matthew Heimlich]

Brecht and Stu,

I've done some poking around with render-guru buddies and the
consensus seems to be that the Pixar paper has some inherent numerical
problems that make it unstable. A couple of people pointed me to the
paper at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~ouj/site/Research/Entries/2012/6/21_ISHair__Importance_Sampling_for_Hair_Scattering.html
instead. Thoughts?

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Brecht Van Lommel
<brechtvanlommel at pandora.be> wrote:
> I don't have specific plans for when such features would be done. I'll
> try to help solving the limitations and assist Stuart, but for now I
> plan to follow my original roadmap and work on the planned 2.66
> features and then subsurface scattering for 2.67 probably.
>
> Mainly we need (in no particular order):
> * Improved attribute support
> * Preview/render resolution
> * Curve/ribbon primitive
> * Minimum pixel width
> * Transparency optimizations
> * Memory usage optimization
> * Hair BSDF
> * GPU support
>
> Maybe Stuart has more specific plans for what he wants to work on first.
>
> Brecht.
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Matthew Heimlich
> <matt.heimlich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry for the delayed response, but I'm interested, what is currently
>> on the table as far as hair development goes? For the near future I
>> mean. I'm very pleased with the surprise reveal of a strand patch, and
>> would like to know what the roadmap for such an implementation looks
>> like between where the patch started and an 'end' point where features
>> like light cache and automatic alpha blending are included.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles