clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.11.2011 03:02, schrieb Ben:
> > Thanks!  Can you recommend any unbiased renderers, then?  My goal is to
> > eventually produce real optical devices to test the predicted results (series of
> > optics).
> >
> >
> > Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
> >> Ben<nomail@nomail>  wrote:
> >>> Can POVRay be used to make nearly-accurate-to-physics models for optics beyond
> >>> refraction and reflection... to diffraction, interference, etc.?
> >>
> >>    Short answer: No.
> >>
> >>    The so-called unbiased renderers, which support BRDF definitions, are
> >> designed for this exact purpose. In other words, if you are able to
> >> describe the physical property of an object with a BRDF, the renderer
> >> will then be able to simulate that property with a high degree of accuracy.
> >> (Of course in many cases it will be extremely slow, and getting a good,
> >> non-grainy result can take humongous amounts of time.)
>
> It should be noted that unbiased renderers typically don't take you much
> further than POV-Ray with radiosity and photons enabled, as they don't
> model light as waves either, and therefore can't support interference
> (e.g. diffraction or iridescence) nor polarization-related effects (e.g.
> birefringence).
>
> The main difference between biased (e.g. POV-Ray) and unbiased renderers
> is not primarily what types of illumination effects they support, but
> that (by definition) the latter use algorithms which are guaranteed to
> not introduce any artifacts except per-pixel statistical noise (which
> can be reduced by investing more computing time).

And phisically-based materials.

Post a reply to this message