Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Hide differencesHistory of post edits

#ActualCryZe

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn1.png

Your approximation might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector (just for diffuse though, for specular you should use the microfacet normal):

eqn2.png

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

src="http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/tempimagedir/eqn7363.png" alt="eqn7363.png">src="http://cryze.bplaced.net/eqn/eqn1.png" alt="eqn1.png">

Your approximation might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector (just for diffuse though, for specular you should use the microfacet normal):

src="http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/tempimagedir/eqn3289.png" alt="eqn3289.png">src="http://cryze.bplaced.net/eqn/eqn2.png" alt="eqn2.png">

#10CryZe

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:53 PM

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

Your approximation might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector (just for diffuse though, for specular you should use the microfacet normal):

eqn3289.png

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

ItYour approximation might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector (just for diffuse though, for specular you should use the microfacet normal):

eqn3289.png

#9CryZe

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:49 PM

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector (just for diffuse though, for specular you should use the microfacet normal):

eqn3289.png

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector:vector (just for diffuse though, for specular you should use the microfacet normal):

eqn3289.png

#8CryZe

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:47 PM

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector:

eqn3289.png

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector:

src="http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/tempimagedir/eqn7363.png" alt="eqn7363.png">src="http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/tempimagedir/eqn3289.png" alt="eqn3289.png">

#7CryZe

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:45 PM

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector:

eqn7363.png

No differences

#6CryZe

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:45 PM

Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

eqn7363.png

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector:

eqn7363.png

Tiago,Tiago, that's an approximation, even with the real Fresnel equations, but is not really correct.

Fresnel is dependent on the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector, but diffuse actually is all the light that is not being reflected, not being absorbed and scattered back out, independent of the microfacets oriented towards the halfway vector. So simply the complement of a single fresnel value won't do it. You would need to solve the integral over all the microfacet orientations with a modified microfacet model:

src="http://rogercortesi.com/eqn/tempimagedir/eqn7363.png" alt="eqn7363.png">

alt="eqn7363.png">

It might actually be worse than not having a factor for diffuse at all. If anything I'd use the macro surface normal instead of the halfway vector:

eqn7363.png

PARTNERS