Beyond Radiosity: The Light of Mies van der Rohe

[d3tach3d]

now get this in real time...

[MrLokification]

we need this to be in real time in an engine like Source

[qborg69]

If you have unlimited computing power ray tracing will produce superior results. But for most applications you have limited memory and processing power and in that case rasterization produces better quality pictures. Even Pixar uses a kind of rasterization for most of its frames.

[q009q009]

looks like "RealLife" on DirectX 9999999999

[chemariludiente]

wow!!! it was done in late 90´s with DALI, and no idea of how many clusters and render time

[Doornail1]

whoaa

[saiserieht]

No way rasterizers will ever look that good! Raytracing is the future.

[VectrexForEver]

Raytracing is the past, I was raytracing things twenty years ago. Realtime global illumination is already possible, just do a search for it here on YouTube for some impressive examples.

[sereda008]

ray tracing is old but the best

[holmesfutrell]

@VectrexForEver: No, Raytracing is not the past. The "global illumination" done under rasterization is usually cheap hacks. Rasterization has a lot of speed advantages, but is a less flexible algorithm. All modern high quality renderers use stochastic raytracing for global illumination.

[VectrexForEver]

@holmesfutrell Ofcourse global illumination renderers use raytracing, I was talking about basic raytracing without indirect lighting, some people are hyping realtime versions of that up as the best graphics ever. Sure realtime global illumination solutions are using tricks to give approximations, but they can get quite close and are constantly improving as graphics cards get more powerful.

[rouncer81]

@saiserieht rasterers will always be up raytracings ass tho, the computation winds up about the same in the end.

[vapourmile]

@saiserieht 100% Bollocks. I'm sick of listening to amateurs propagating rubbish like this: 1. From a realism stand-point there is very little to no advantage in using ray-tracing except for scenes which depend on multiple reflections and refraction which, in the real world, is almost nothing. Seriously, take a look around you: Book covers, table tops. Unless you have a mirror near by there is very little that requires ray-tracing for realism...

[edwin11373]

Damn! This is the best lighting effect I've seen so far I. Pure sophistication indeed!!

[empirebs]

wo-ah!! i've just started out on 3D max, i hope i'm that good some day!!! amazing

[saivert]

the key to realism is lighting. animators have known this for a long time. Doesn't matter if the textures, polygons and all that looks good if the lighting is the one to spoil it all. We humans unconsciously spot tiny differences and small things. It's the same with faces. "uncanny valley" anyone?

[hardToSignUpHere]

presentation is great - you see the house before anything happens. Wow, why people need radiosity after that!

[Nimise08]

That must have taken like 10 hours per frame :O

[q009q009]

@Nimise08 thats already possibble in realtime

[Westonci]

UC San Diego computer scientists have created a fog and smoke machine for computer graphics that cuts the computational cost of making realistic smoky and foggy 3-D images, such as beams of light from a lighthouse piercing thick fog.

April 18, 2008

Expect to see theses graphics in movies soon.

[ruderogo]

that is a really stunning representation

[Ichkovitch]

Impressive!

[herorev]

Photon mapping animation? Now that is some serious number crunching.

[spotswoodthenewt]

Wow...gotta' love that! Excellent!

[SlavaVB]

how long did that take to render?

[ephemerol]

amazing

[photobook1jpn]

great

[pelleproffen123abc]

it's awesome, makes me wanna do some design work!!