Normal mapping - diffuse texture dependance
Author
Hi everyone,
Having been working with normal mapping technique for some time now, I came to a conclusion that it depends badly on general brightness of the diffuse texture it's combined with. If the texture isn't bright enough, bumps may not be visible. Is there any way around it? Should I use some other bump mapping technique for using with dark diffuse textures?
Maybe I'm just doing something wrong, but it seems obvious to me that imaginary bumps' "shadows" that normal mapping generates will always fade on a dark surface.
Thank you
I'm going to move this over to GP&T as this seems to be a more general graphics issue. Chances are that if anyone has an answer, it'll be one of the GP&T regulars [grin]
The quality of your lighting does depend quite substantially on the source artwork. As I'm sure you've probably seen in commercial games, good art can make average technology look excellent (I'm thinking of HL2 [wink]).
I can't remember where, but I do remember reading that diffuse maps should be created with low-frequency/low contrast colours. Allow the lighting/normalmap to provide the luminance rather than have it inherantly stored in the diffuse component.
For example, if you had a dark-grey/black area in a diffuse map, it'll take an extremely bright light to increase its final colour - multiplying the incoming lighting by 0.0 - 0.1 will almost always result in a dark output..
Jack
The quality of your lighting does depend quite substantially on the source artwork. As I'm sure you've probably seen in commercial games, good art can make average technology look excellent (I'm thinking of HL2 [wink]).
I can't remember where, but I do remember reading that diffuse maps should be created with low-frequency/low contrast colours. Allow the lighting/normalmap to provide the luminance rather than have it inherantly stored in the diffuse component.
For example, if you had a dark-grey/black area in a diffuse map, it'll take an extremely bright light to increase its final colour - multiplying the incoming lighting by 0.0 - 0.1 will almost always result in a dark output..
Jack
How are you doing your normal mapping? Perhaps there is a mistake somewhere.
I can see how you would get the results you describe if you accidentally are doing something like this:
pixel color = dot(vVertexNormal,vLightDir) * vTextureColor * vNormalMap;
Remember that normal mapping is a perturbation of the vertex normal. So in reality, your equation should look something like this:
vNormal = normalize(vVertexNormal + vNormalMap);
pixel color = dot(vNormal, vLightDir) * vTextureColor;
neneboricua
I can see how you would get the results you describe if you accidentally are doing something like this:
pixel color = dot(vVertexNormal,vLightDir) * vTextureColor * vNormalMap;
Remember that normal mapping is a perturbation of the vertex normal. So in reality, your equation should look something like this:
vNormal = normalize(vVertexNormal + vNormalMap);
pixel color = dot(vNormal, vLightDir) * vTextureColor;
neneboricua
I think the bumps will "fade" on a dark surface, no matter what bump / normal / displacement mapping technique you use, simply because on a dark surface a lit pixel won´t be much of a difference to an unlit one, except you´re doing some additional specular mapping, simple gloss or reflection on the surface which would show the bumps more clearly.
Using neneboricua´s equation:
with a vTextureColor value that has low brightness clearly scales down the range of the resulting color, so less contrast, therefore the bumps will somewhat fade out, no matter how vNormal is calculated (that is, as long as vNormal and vLightDir are normalized vectors).
Using neneboricua´s equation:
pixel color = dot(vNormal, vLightDir) * vTextureColorwith a vTextureColor value that has low brightness clearly scales down the range of the resulting color, so less contrast, therefore the bumps will somewhat fade out, no matter how vNormal is calculated (that is, as long as vNormal and vLightDir are normalized vectors).
Normal mapping and similar techniques "visualize" the bumps using only (non ambient) lighting. Naturally, the less the lighting the less visible the effect is.
Extreme case: If no lighting is present, no bumps are visible at all.
Parallax/Displace mapping visualize the bumps by pertubating the texture coordinates, to give a 3D appearance. I assume the visibility of the effect depends on the color range: More different colors in adjucent areas, the bumps are more visible. If the colors are similar, then the pertubation won't change the resulting image much.
Extreme case: If the object has only 1 solid color all over, no bumps are visible.
So, a dark object has both low light and small color range/frequence. It's natural that the bumps will be less visible even using both techniques(Normalmapping&displacement). Note that what happens in the real world is similar. When it is easier to notice the bumps on a brick wall? In a well-lit room or in a bitch-black room? On a wall painted in stripes or in a wall being painted white all over?
Extreme case: If no lighting is present, no bumps are visible at all.
Parallax/Displace mapping visualize the bumps by pertubating the texture coordinates, to give a 3D appearance. I assume the visibility of the effect depends on the color range: More different colors in adjucent areas, the bumps are more visible. If the colors are similar, then the pertubation won't change the resulting image much.
Extreme case: If the object has only 1 solid color all over, no bumps are visible.
So, a dark object has both low light and small color range/frequence. It's natural that the bumps will be less visible even using both techniques(Normalmapping&displacement). Note that what happens in the real world is similar. When it is easier to notice the bumps on a brick wall? In a well-lit room or in a bitch-black room? On a wall painted in stripes or in a wall being painted white all over?
If you're really concerned about it, you might want to integrate specular lighting with your stuff, since that is able to really show off the normal maps much more than just the N dot L term could ever do, because it is typically much brighter than the diffuse lighting and uses a much sharper falloff, typically.
Author
Yes, I am really concerned about it. Specular lighting is typically just a light map added on top of everything, isn't it? I don't see how it may show off the bumps though. I'm probably missing something.
Quote:Original post by tokaplan
Yes, I am really concerned about it. Specular lighting is typically just a light map added on top of everything, isn't it? I don't see how it may show off the bumps though. I'm probably missing something.
No, specular lighting is kind of "refelected" lighting, it's what you see when a surface "shines", and is dependant of the viewer also. But it's not for all surfaces, because they're not all shiny, regardless of what some game developers seem to think these days.
Why are you so concerned about it? I've already explained that similar things happen in the real world. If you want details on surfaces to be more apparent, increase the lighting. If you don't increase it, details on surfaces will be less visible. It's not rocket science.
Specular highlights are light *added* to the surface color (in the rendering)
The equation usually looks something like:
(ambient_light + diffuse_light) * texture_color + specular_light
Specular lighting is also calculated as a reflection of the light sources in the scene. Look up Phong stuff :) Wikipedia is a great place to start.
-Michael g.
The equation usually looks something like:
(ambient_light + diffuse_light) * texture_color + specular_light
Specular lighting is also calculated as a reflection of the light sources in the scene. Look up Phong stuff :) Wikipedia is a great place to start.
-Michael g.
Quote:
(ambient_light + diffuse_light) * texture_color + specular_light
Shouldn't this be
max(diffuse_light*texture_color, ambient_light*texture_color) + specular_light;?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
