clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 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.)



It is the method to approach PBR in one way truly. Some of it is my habit. One
is the rule "don't use phong or specular, rely on reflections instead".
Because all smooth surface can form an image of other object by it. Pov-ray
simulate this function by the 'reflection' keyword. It has done. And a highlight
is just the image of a bright object we say the light source, it is unnecessary
to give another keyword 'phong' to do the same and repeat phenomenon.
But at the same time, you should make a "well-matching "looks_like" object to
make it pretty. The thing which we should "well-matching" is the brightness of
this object and the intensity of the corresponding light source.

I want to say my story on this topic:
Several years ago, I saw the result making by some advanced rendering engine
like Indigo renderer. It is too wonderful, I start thinking how to make such a
realistic result.
I'm a physic bachelor, so I think I have the ability on the topic. The first
thing I tried in Pov-ray is to use the emission look like object to produce the
highlight on a reflect surface. I tend to use this method. Instead of the
specular or phong keyword. Then I tried to calculate the "well-matching
"looks_like" object should have what color brightness.

Post a reply to this message