Sign in to follow this  
dila_

OpenGL Does the OpenGL fixed function pipeline compute lighting in view-space?

Recommended Posts

[color=#000000][font=Arial,]Does the OpenGL fixed function pipeline compute lighting in view-space?[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Arial,]If the answer is yes, then how does it cope with view transformations with non-uniform scale? Actually, how does it cope with view transformations incorporating [i]any[/i] scale at all?[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Arial,]If this is true then scaling the view space will result in different light-to-vertex distances, meaning the lighting intensity for point-lights will change as the view matrix is scaled.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Arial,]Lighting in world-space would make the computed point-light intensity independent of view space scaling, but would require:[/font][/color]
[list]
[*]That an object-to-world matrix is supplied to the API (such as in DirectX, where the light positions are specified in world-space).
[*]That the API transform all geometry twice when drawing. Once by world*view*proj into clip space, and again by world, in order to compute lighting at the vertices in world space.
[/list]

[color=#000000][font=Arial,]I also posted this to stackoverflow, perhaps you want to answer it there too: [url="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10830759/does-the-opengl-fixed-function-pipeline-compute-lighting-in-view-space"]http://stackoverflow...g-in-view-space[/url][/font][/color] Edited by infact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds like you aren't a OpenGL user.
GL doesn't have a view matrix and it doesn't have a world matrix. GL only has a modelview matrix.
GL transforms vertices by the modelview matrix to get eye space vertices. It also transform normals by the inverse transpose of the modelview matrix to get eye space normal vectors. Lighting is computed in eye space. In order to deal with non uniform scale, you can glEnable(GL_NORMALIZE). If you only have a uniform scale, you can glEnable(GL_RESCALE) which is "faster" than GL_NORMALIZE.

Of course, all of the above is relevant to the year 2002 and before. It's time to move to the world of shaders. Edited by V-man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is not about the effect that the transformation has on the normals.

From the documentation I can see that OpenGL has a MODELVIEW matrix, which is a concatenation of the MODEL and VIEW matrices, so from that point of view OpenGL can support separate model and view matrices.

Now consider the difference between: distance(vertex*model - world_light) and distance(vertex*modelview - view_light).

Notice how the distance between the vertex and the light can change, potentially depending on the non-uniform scaling in the matrix. Edited by infact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='infact' timestamp='1338463275' post='4944940']From the documentation I can see that OpenGL has a MODELVIEW matrix, which is a concatenation of the MODEL and VIEW matrices, so from that point of view OpenGL can support separate model and view matrices.[/quote]
From the point of view of OpenGL, there is only 1 matrix called the modelview matrix. Notice how "modelview" is composed of the words model and view. No, OpenGL doesn't support "separate model and view matrices". It is a single matrix.


[quote name='infact' timestamp='1338463275' post='4944940']
Now consider the difference between: distance(vertex*model - world_light) and distance(vertex*modelview - view_light).

Notice how the distance between the vertex and the light can change, potentially depending on the non-uniform scaling in the matrix.
[/quote]

You don't apply the same matrix to all your objects and all your lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that lighting in world space will be different to lighting in view space.

distance(vertex*view - light) != distance(vertex - light*view^-1)

this is clear if we let the light origin be 0,0,0, and consider a matrix with no translation, then we have that:

length(vertex*view) != length(vertex)

which is true

In other words, the transformation distorts the lighting

So I wonder why opengl does lighting in view space and not in world space.

Is it for the the sake of having a single modelview matrix instead of separate model and view matrices in the pipeline? Edited by infact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as far as I know lighting is space independent. It should be the same for world, view, and tangent space.
The implementation might compute lighting in any of these spaces, but it must provide you with the variables and functions that you see in the specs, and it has to act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='infact' timestamp='1338478857' post='4945016']
My point is that lighting in world space will be different to lighting in view space.

distance(vertex*view - light) != distance(vertex - light*view^-1)

this is clear if we let the light origin be 0,0,0, and consider a matrix with no translation, then we have that:

length(vertex*view) != distance(vertex)

which is true

In other words, the transformation distorts the lighting

So I wonder why opengl does lighting in view space and not in world space.

Is it for the the sake of having a single modelview matrix instead of separate model and view matrices in the pipeline?
[/quote]
If view is a zero-translation matrix without scaling, then distance(vertex*view) == distance(vertex) and so lighting is the same in both spaces. If it incorporates scaling, then the distances will indeed be different, but it is only different from a conceptual quantity that doesn't exist in OpenGL. You can easily move the scaling from the view matrix into the model matrix instead to ensure that the view matrix is rotation only (assuming the given non-zero translation). You are basically comparing a result agains an intermetiate value that has no meaning in OpenGL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='infact' timestamp='1338478857' post='4945016']
My point is that lighting in world space will be different to lighting in view space.

distance(vertex*view - light) != distance(vertex - light*view^-1)

this is clear if we let the light origin be 0,0,0, and consider a matrix with no translation, then we have that:

length(vertex*view) != distance(vertex)

which is true

In other words, the transformation distorts the lighting

So I wonder why opengl does lighting in view space and not in world space.

Is it for the the sake of having a single modelview matrix instead of separate model and view matrices in the pipeline?
[/quote]

Ok, I see. I did a test and yes, there is a difference in distance depending on which space you are working in when there is scale applied.
It seems to be a problem for point lights and spot lights and when you need to use attenuation.

However, I don't see this as a problem for fixed function GL because fixed function GL doesn't do its lighting computation in object space.

But for someone who is using shaders, and let's say he wants to do bump mapping on certain objects and phong lighting on something else, the attenuation will appear different and he might wonder why. The bump mapped object would appear brighter.

Is the above correct? Can someone verify it? Edited by V-man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes lighting is not distorted. If you compute light intensity at several distances from light source and you place vertices at that distances from light source the intensity will be correct.

the only thing that is distorted is fog, and that's because fog is usually computed using Z-buffer values instead of distances of vertices from camera. NVIDIA made an extension for that (eye radial fog) but that's OT.

Maybe you should know that geometries are distorted by projection. Human eyes is a semisphere internally, while computer monitor is a flat surface (does anyone ever experimented stretched cubes near sides of frustum view? In the reality a cube will not be stretched even if at limits of vision range) so geometry projection is already a distortion from what you will see if you were for really in the game. But there is nothing you can do for that ^^.

That's why stereo-monitors aren't so good and some people complain about headhackes looking at 3D movies for more than several minutes.. There was also a study at Berkley sponsored by Samsung.

For shaders that's the same. If you want correct lighting you need to compute distance from camera in vertex shader and then feed fragment shader with the interpolated varying. you can't use Zbuffer value in shaders for that.

Most shaders based on Zbuffer values infact are doing some space correction (for example SSAO) Edited by DemonRad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      627719
    • Total Posts
      2978789
  • Similar Content

    • By DelicateTreeFrog
      Hello! As an exercise for delving into modern OpenGL, I'm creating a simple .obj renderer. I want to support things like varying degrees of specularity, geometry opacity, things like that, on a per-material basis. Different materials can also have different textures. Basic .obj necessities. I've done this in old school OpenGL, but modern OpenGL has its own thing going on, and I'd like to conform as closely to the standards as possible so as to keep the program running correctly, and I'm hoping to avoid picking up bad habits this early on.
      Reading around on the OpenGL Wiki, one tip in particular really stands out to me on this page:
      For something like a renderer for .obj files, this sort of thing seems almost ideal, but according to the wiki, it's a bad idea. Interesting to note!
      So, here's what the plan is so far as far as loading goes:
      Set up a type for materials so that materials can be created and destroyed. They will contain things like diffuse color, diffuse texture, geometry opacity, and so on, for each material in the .mtl file. Since .obj files are conveniently split up by material, I can load different groups of vertices/normals/UVs and triangles into different blocks of data for different models. When it comes to the rendering, I get a bit lost. I can either:
      Between drawing triangle groups, call glUseProgram to use a different shader for that particular geometry (so a unique shader just for the material that is shared by this triangle group). or
      Between drawing triangle groups, call glUniform a few times to adjust different parameters within the "master shader", such as specularity, diffuse color, and geometry opacity. In both cases, I still have to call glBindTexture between drawing triangle groups in order to bind the diffuse texture used by the material, so there doesn't seem to be a way around having the CPU do *something* during the rendering process instead of letting the GPU do everything all at once.
      The second option here seems less cluttered, however. There are less shaders to keep up with while one "master shader" handles it all. I don't have to duplicate any code or compile multiple shaders. Arguably, I could always have the shader program for each material be embedded in the material itself, and be auto-generated upon loading the material from the .mtl file. But this still leads to constantly calling glUseProgram, much more than is probably necessary in order to properly render the .obj. There seem to be a number of differing opinions on if it's okay to use hundreds of shaders or if it's best to just use tens of shaders.
      So, ultimately, what is the "right" way to do this? Does using a "master shader" (or a few variants of one) bog down the system compared to using hundreds of shader programs each dedicated to their own corresponding materials? Keeping in mind that the "master shaders" would have to track these additional uniforms and potentially have numerous branches of ifs, it may be possible that the ifs will lead to additional and unnecessary processing. But would that more expensive than constantly calling glUseProgram to switch shaders, or storing the shaders to begin with?
      With all these angles to consider, it's difficult to come to a conclusion. Both possible methods work, and both seem rather convenient for their own reasons, but which is the most performant? Please help this beginner/dummy understand. Thank you!
    • By JJCDeveloper
      I want to make professional java 3d game with server program and database,packet handling for multiplayer and client-server communicating,maps rendering,models,and stuffs Which aspect of java can I learn and where can I learn java Lwjgl OpenGL rendering Like minecraft and world of tanks
    • By AyeRonTarpas
      A friend of mine and I are making a 2D game engine as a learning experience and to hopefully build upon the experience in the long run.

      -What I'm using:
          C++;. Since im learning this language while in college and its one of the popular language to make games with why not.     Visual Studios; Im using a windows so yea.     SDL or GLFW; was thinking about SDL since i do some research on it where it is catching my interest but i hear SDL is a huge package compared to GLFW, so i may do GLFW to start with as learning since i may get overwhelmed with SDL.  
      -Questions
      Knowing what we want in the engine what should our main focus be in terms of learning. File managements, with headers, functions ect. How can i properly manage files with out confusing myself and my friend when sharing code. Alternative to Visual studios: My friend has a mac and cant properly use Vis studios, is there another alternative to it?  
    • By ferreiradaselva
      Both functions are available since 3.0, and I'm currently using `glMapBuffer()`, which works fine.
      But, I was wondering if anyone has experienced advantage in using `glMapBufferRange()`, which allows to specify the range of the mapped buffer. Could this be only a safety measure or does it improve performance?
      Note: I'm not asking about glBufferSubData()/glBufferData. Those two are irrelevant in this case.
    • By xhcao
      Before using void glBindImageTexture(    GLuint unit, GLuint texture, GLint level, GLboolean layered, GLint layer, GLenum access, GLenum format), does need to make sure that texture is completeness. 
  • Popular Now