dipityPix app

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Bug in my Schlick code

In a previous post I talked about my debugging of refraction code.   In that ray tracer I was using linear polarization and used these full Fresnel equations:

Ugh those are awful.   For this reason and because polarization doesn't matter that much for most appearance, most ray tracers use R = (Rs+Rp)/2.    That's a very smooth function and Christophe Schlick proposed a nice simple approximation that is quite accurate:

R = (1-R0)(1-cosTheta)^5

A key issue is that the Theta is the **larger** angle.   For example in my debugging case (drawn with limnu which has some nice new features that made this easy):

The 45 degree angle is the one to use.   This is true on the right and the left-- the reflectivity is symmetric.   In the case where we only have the 30 degree angle, we need to convert to the other angle by using Snell's Law: Theta = asin(sqrt(2)*sin(30 degrees).

The reason for this post is that I have this wrong in my book Ray Tracing in One Weekend :

Note that the first case (assuming outward normals) is the one on the left where the dot product is the cos(30 degrees).  The "correction" is messed up.    So why does it "work"?    The reflectances are small for most theta, and it will be small for most of the incorrect theta too.   Total internal reflection will be right, so the visual differences will be plausible.

Thanks to Ali Alwasiti (@vexe666) for spotting my mistake!

Sunday, September 18, 2016

A new programmer's attitude should be like an artist's or musician's

Last year I gave a talk at a CS education conference in Seattle called "Drawing Inspiration from the Teaching of Art".   That talk was aimed at educators and said that historically CS education was based on that of math and/or physics and that was a mistake and we should instead base it on art.   I expected a lot of pushback but many of the attendees had a "duh-- I have been doing that for 20 years" reaction.

This short post is aimed at students of CS but pursues the same theme.   If you were an art or music student your goal would be to be good at ONE THING in TEN YEARS.   If a music student that might be signing, composition, music theory, or playing a particular instrument.   Any one of those things is very hard.   Your goal would be to find that one thing you resonate with and then keep pushing your skills with lots and lots of practice.  Sure you could become competent in the other areas, but your goal is to be a master of one.   Similarly as an artist you would want to become great at one thing be it printmaking, painting, drawing, pottery, sculpture, or art theory.   Maybe you become great at two things but if so you are a Michelangelo style unicorn and more power to you.

Even if you become great at one thing, you become great at it in your own way.    For example in painting Monet wanted Sargent to give up using black.   It is so good that Sargent didn't do that.   This painting with Monet's palette would not be as good.   And Monet wouldn't have wanted to do that painting anyway!

Computer Science is not exactly art or music, but the underlying issues are the same.   First, it is HARD.   Never forget that.   Don't let some CS prof or brogrammer make you think you suck at it because you think it's hard.   Second you must become master of the tools by both reading/listening and playing with them.   Most importantly find the "medium" and "subject" where you have some talent and where it resonates with you emotionally.   If you love writing cute UI javascript tools and hate writing C++ graphics code, that doesn't make you a flawed computer scientist.   It is a gift in narrowing your search for your technical soul mate.   Love Scheme and hate C# or vice-versa.   That is not a flaw but again is another productive step on your journey.   Finally, if you discover an idiosyncratic methodology that works for you and gets lots of pushback, ignore the pushback.   Think van Gogh.    But keep the ear-- at the end of the day, CS is more about what works :)

Friday, July 15, 2016

I do have a bug

I questioned whether this was right:

I was concerned about the bright bottom and thought maybe there was a light tunnel effect.   I looked through my stuff and found a dented cube, and its bottom seemed to show total internal reflection:
The light tunnel effect might be happening and there is a little glow under the cube, but you cant see it thought the cube.   Elevating it a little does show that:

Digging out some old code and adding a cube yielded:
This is for debugging so the noise was just because I didn't run to convergence.   That does look like total internal reflection on the bottom of the cube, but the back wall is similar to the floor.   Adding a sphere makes it more obvious:
Is this right?   Probably.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Always a hard question: do I have a bug?

In testing some new code involving box-intersection I prepared a Cornell Box with a glass block, and first question is "is this right?".    As usual, I am not sure.    Here's the picture (done with a bajillion samples so I wont get fooled by outliers):

It's smooth anyway.   The glass is plausible to my eye.   The strangest thing is how bright the bottom of the glass block is.   Is it right?    At first I figured bug.   But maybe that prism operates as a light tunnel (like fiber optics) so the bottom is the same color as a diffuse square on the prism top would be.   So now I will test that hypothesis somehow (google image search?   find a glass block?) and if that phenomenon is right and of about the right magnitude, I'll declare victory.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

A sale on Limnu

The collaborative white-boarding program I used for my ray tracing e books has finished their enterprise team features that your boss will want if you are in a company.   It's normally $8 a month per user but if you buy in the next week it is $4 per month for a year.   Looks like that rate will apply to any users added to your team before or after the deadline as well.   I love this program-- try it!

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Prototyping video processing

I got a prototype of my 360 video project done in Quartz Composer using a custom Core Image filter.     I am in love with Quartz Composer and core graphics because it is such a nice prototyping environment and because I can stay in 2D for the video.   Here is the whole program:

A cool thing is I can use an image for debugging where I can stick in whatever calibration points I want to in Photoshop.   Then I just connect the video part and no changes are needed-- the Core Image Filter takes and image or video equally happily and Billboard displays the same.

The Filter is pretty simple and is approximately GLSL     

One thing to be careful on is the return range of atan (GLSL atan is the atan2 we know and love).

I need to test this with some higer-res equirectangular video.    Preferably with fixes viewpoint and with unmodified time.   If anyone can point me to some I would appreciate it.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

What resolution is needed for 360 video?

I got my basic 360 video viewer working and was not pleased with the resolution.   I've realized that people are really serious that they need very high res.   I was skeptical of these claims because I am not that impressed with 4K TVs relative to 2K TVs unless they are huge.   So what minimum res do we need?    Let's say I have the following 1080p TV (we'll call that 2K to conform to the 4K terminology-- 2K horizontal pixels):

Image from https://wallpaperscraft.com
If we wanted to tile the wall horizontally with that TV we would need 3-4 of them.   For a 360 surround we would need 12-20.   Let's call it 10 because we are after approximate minimum res.  So that's 20K pixels.   To get up to "good" surround video 20K pixels horizontally.   4K is much more like NTSC.   As we know, in some circumstances that is good enough.

Facebook engineers have a nice talk on some of the engineering issues these large numbers imply. 

Edit: Robert Menzel pointed out on Twitter that the same logic is why 8K does suffice for current HMDs.