Re: Misc: Applications of small floating point formats.

On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 03:01:16 -0500, BGB wrote:

On 8/3/2024 12:32 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
But, what I am saying is, a lot of stuff doesn't need raytracing.

Like I said, there are non-raytraced renderers inspired by video-game
engines. They don’t use OpenGL. And it does take extra tricks (e.g.
things called “light probes”) to get realistic-looking lighting with
them.

Movies and similar often use raytracing, but a lot of stuff doesn't need
it. One can often tell visually what is or is not raytracing.

In the hands of skilled practitioners, it’s very likely you can’t. You
probably can’t even tell which scenes, or parts of scenes, are CG and
which are actual physical sets.

Also, sometimes raytracing doesn't work out ideal either:
>
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmZhZGU2Y2QtYjc2NC00MzE5LWE3OGItMTFmOGU4NzVjM2YyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_.jpg
>
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/S/pv-target-images/ccbc22354235eb619e2ad63c56a7c89bdee327fb1e7a2cf0b965c91b2e5336cc.jpg

The usual ray-tracing artifacts are called “fireflies” (random bright
dots in the image). I don’t see them there. Are you complaining about
the images being deliberately grungy?

There is now RTX, which can do hardware raytracing.

RTX is a joke. It does maybe one or two rays per pixel, and then
covers up the artifacts with heavy use of denoising.

It takes a bit more than cel-shading to get a good 2D look with 3D
software.
 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmSdY56VtY>

 
Possibly, but this is not typical from what I have seen.

Even more “not typical”:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzqD4xcbEuE>. Check out that Dédouze
guy; his work is just amazing.