"arblick spule" <aspule> wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > "arblick spule" <aspule> wrote:
> > AO is nothing more than a fake GI method.
>
> Indeed, however GI is fake as well.  Let us not forget that math doesn't
> always equal real(istic).

GI is not a technique, but a family of techniques to get very realistic indirect
lighting.  It's fake as in it's an approximation of reality, but a much, much
closer approximation than AO anyway.  Of course, depends on which GI technique
you're using too.

> All images that come out of all renderers (freeware or otherwise) have
> noticeable flaws in them.  For instance the dragon render above, without AO
> pass, has a very bright hard-palate despite all three of the lights being
> "behind" it and the material having quite a low reflectance value.  Radiosity
> was turned on for this render and yielded a, quite frankly, wildly displeasing
> picture.  3DSMax's renderer will do exactly the same and I have no doubt that
> most of those that exist will too.

Radiosity only takes into account diffuse interreflections.  For a reflective
material, you'd probably do better by turning diffuse down a lot in its finish.

I'm also sure photon mapping in 3DSMax's MR would do a much more realistic job
than either AO or radiosity.  And unbiased, physically-based techniques would be
even more accurate.

If that's disgusting, well, blame optics...

> What, I opine, AO does is give an obviously
> fake image (Dragon sat on checkered disc) some degree of - well - realism for
> the eye, or maybe "depth" is a better word.

never heard of statues and checkered floors?

In any case, I'm all for artistic license.

Post a reply to this message