Unfortunately, ray tracing of general scenes is undecidable:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~reif/paper/tygar/raytracing.pdf
Re:The Art of Rendering (2012)
by carterschonwald on Saturday December 07, 2013 @02:26PM
(#6867319)
The stochastic raytracing algorithms are "exact" if they're run long enough, right? (I know I've spoken to you and Edward about this stuff at length)
Semirelatedly, do you think the Haskell Diagrams lib with its normals tricks would be a good pedagogical substrate for raytracing for general shapes? Seems like it would allow punting on how surfaces are represented Mebe.
I have a feeling that this is one of those ideas that is going to be far far harder than you think it will be.
Re:The Art of Rendering (2012)
by Scene_Cast2 on Saturday December 07, 2013 @12:47PM
(#6866993)
So far I've tried doing it on paper for a infinite plane with a single step and uniform lighting. I ended up with a scaled atan(x) as the function of light depending on the distance from the step. I haven't figured out how to handle complex occluding geometry in a nice way.
That's exactly what I mean; the simple sanity check case is easy, but once you start layering on things like complex geometry and surface models and volume data, the problem grows in difficulty absurdly quickly.
Re:The Art of Rendering (2012)
by stevenschronk on Saturday December 07, 2013 @12:43PM
(#6866983)
I have been working on one and it's not that hard actually.
The most difficult part has been creating the right data model.
To anyone looking to get into graphics - I strongly recommend writing a toy scanline raytracer - it's a great learning experience.