> Very clever.

ehhm, to be honest this is really not rocket science and the patch is ~ 50
lines of C

> But i guess it is really quite awfully slow.

well as slow as blurred reflection, or things like this. I would say slow
but not awfully slow :)

> It could be worth
> considering some caching function but that will probably be less helpful
> than with diffuse radiosity since the result varies much stronger with
> position and surface normal.

I've not tried but i'm pretty sure caching is useless considering, as you
noted, the strong effect of normal and incident ray direction. A way to make
it faster would be to find another brdf which don't require a pow() call for
the distribution as it is quite cpu expensive (there are papers about such
brdf, see for example
http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~schlick/DOC/eur2.html)

> How does it look with very low sample counts? Does it look mostly noisy or
> are there other artefacts?

in the current implementation the position of samples is fixed so low sample
counts may give artifacts. I think adding a random rotation of the samples
would result in noise.

M

Post a reply to this message