|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Am 21.06.2015 um 09:44 schrieb Nekar Xenos:
> Can some explain to me what exactly PBR is. In Pov-Ray terms would be
> nice :)
PBR avoids old-school shading models and rendering algorithms that were
designed to achieve a particular effect, and instead uses mechanisms
that were designed to model the underlying physical processes.
POV-Ray has been heavily geared towards PBR in recent times, and UberPOV
should by now be a viable PBR tool, provided you stick to the following
rules:
- Don't use "ambient". Use radiosity instead, and "emission" where
applicable.
- Don't use "phong" or "specular". Rely on reflections instead (which,
for good results, mandates that you use blurred reflections).
- If you decide that you do need to use "phong" or "specular", prefer
"specular", and /always/ use it in tandem with reflection, making sure
that the parameters match: Use "specular albedo N" where N is the
maximum reflection intensity, and use "fresnel on" or "metallic on" for
the entire finish block just as you do in the reflection block. Also,
make sure to specify the same "roughness" in the reflection block.
(You'll need an up-to-date version of UberPOV for "fresnel on" in the
entire finish block and "roughness" in the reflection block.)
- Always use "fresnel on" for reflections (don't forget to specify
"ior"), or "metallic on" where applicable, and always use 0.0 for the
minimum reflection (or leave it out, specifying the maximum reflection
only).
- Don't use colours as reflection parameters. Use the "metallic"
mechanism for this instead.
- Don't use "light_source". Use objects with "emission" (or a sky
sphere) and radiosity instead.
- If you decide that you do need to use "light_source", always use a
well-matching "looks_like" object with "no_radiosity on", always use
"area_light", always use "fade_power 2" with "fade_distance" set to
(roughly) half the area light vectors' dimensions, and always use
"area_illumination" unless the light source is sufficiently far away.
Also, do make use of photon mapping.
- Use "normals on" and "media on" in the radiosity settings. Use
high-quality settings, and/or turn sample caching off (requires UberPOV).
- Don't use "filter" (unless you know what you're doing). Use a fading
interior instead, with "fade_power 1001", or use absorbing media.
- Don't use "rainbow" (does anyone?).
- Do use a little bit of reflection on all your materials (typically
with heavy blur).
- If something doesn't look right, don't ask "what effect can I add or
tweak to make it look better?" but "what phyiscal properties of my scene
have I not modelled correctly?"
As for HDR light probes, contrary to what Jerome wrote, the question of
whether they're legit as a /sky sphere/ to avoid complex modelling is
outside the scope of PBR; what's a no-go in PBR is using them for
/environment mapping/ to fake reflections, but POV-Ray doesn't support
that technique out of the box anyway. (You /could/ achieve a similar
effect and possibly some of the speedup by using a HDR sky sphere and
setting all objects to "no_reflection on", but environment mapping is
also frequently used with different maps for different objects.)
The advantages of PBR are threefold:
- It takes far less time to achieve a convincing result, provided you
have a basic understanding of the the underlying physical effects,
because you don't need endless iterations of tweaking your material and
light source parameters, repeatedly trying to figure out (A) what's
still wrong about the resulting image, and (B) how to counter this with
the knobs available (without introducing other undesired effects). With
PBR, first of all your images will /always/ be physically consistent in
themselves (and thus convincing in a very basic sense), and second, all
you need to achieve a truly convincing look is to carefully examine the
materials and light sources you intend to model and plug in the
corresponding values. If you did it right, all you have left to do is
worry about whether the image is pleasing, not whether it is convincing.
- You can freely combine elements from different sources. In a non-PBR
environment, only the combination of materials and lighting can be
assessed for whether they are convincing or not, and any attempt to set
up some "neutral" setting to assess just one or the other is moot: To
assess whether a lighting setup is "neutral" it would have to be tested
with known "neutral" materials, but to assess whether a material is
"neutral" in the first place it would have to be tested with a known
"neutral" lighting setup - a classic hen and egg problem. In practice,
different authors will inevitably have different ideas what a chicken
actually is. In a PBR environment, however, a material can be assessed
simply by checking whether the parameters plugged in match the optical
characteristics observed in reality, without rendering even a single
image, and the same goes for lighting setups. So even if you don't have
the facilities to measure the exact optical chracteristics of all your
materials and lighting setups, you can jump-start your chicken farm from
a small set of precisely known materials and lighting setups.
- You can rely on the results being physically accurate, allowing you to
model scenes for which you have no real-life reference image to go by.
(Maybe one of the most spectacular examples is the black hole and
accretion disk in the "Interstellar" movie, which was modeled solely
from physical principles - at least as far as the distortion of
spacetime is concerned - rather than preconceived notions of how such a
phenomenon would look like.)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |