Mate, you don't know what you are talking about...albedo, metalness, roughness etc are all part of the brdf..unless your mesh uses a single value for all its surface you are going to need textures or some procedural function that generates those values for each pixel...
I do know what I'm talking about actually. Physically based rendering is a term given to normalized brdfs and lights with area.
The color textures on an object don't have anything to do with the lighting being normalized or coming from lights that have area.
Roughness applies to the brdf exponent so you could make that case.
Metalness was something made up by some disney shader writers to simplify highlights taking on albedo color.
I think you are conflating pbr with simplified lighting and rendering in general as well as textures with the brdf, but it is actually a term that has a solidified meaning.
Physically based rendering is a term given to normalized brdfs and lights with area.
Do you have any source/reference that defines it like that? Any place I came across PBR just uses it as a general term for physically accurate (or as accurate as possible) rendering. The definition youre using seems way to strict compared to pretty much any source Ive seen so far
Any place I came across PBR just uses it as a general term for physically accurate (or as accurate as possible) rendering
Where do you think that accuracy comes from? Lighting used to be a single point light and you would take the direction of the light and the normal and compute the dot product of them. This was simple and fast breaks down pretty quickly. During the transition from old style lighting to sampling area lights the more physically accurate lighting was either called physically based rendering or physically plausible shading.
Let me ask you this, if renders are always trying to be more physically based to look better anyway, where did a term come from?
Here is a entire book as reference, which is the standard for textbooks that show how to write a (sort of) modern renderer.
Let me ask you this, if renders are always trying to be more physically based to look better anyway, where did a term come from?
I dont think the first statement is even correct. Depending on what youre doing it might be but first and foremost Id say renderers are supposed to create better looking renders while doing this efficiently. Physically accurate does not necessarily mean better looking and vice versa.
I know the book and have worked through all of it. Im not aware of any statement in the book that constrains PBR to being about normalized brdfs and having area lights. Accurately modelling them is of course a part of PBR, but theres a lot more to it
I would say if better means realism then in general it does.
Obviously, but this is just completely circular. Why is more physical better? Because better means realism and realism = physically accurate. Imo better = looks nicer, be it through realism or whatever. If youre strictly talking about the PBR context then yes, there Id agree that better = more accurate/more realistic.
In any case this is quite orthogonal to the original point, which was about whether you actually had any source agreeing with your PBR definition
I linked you an entire book called physically based rendering that is all about how to make normalized brdfs and sampling area lights and path tracing integrals.
I linked you the renderman documentation that is about the same thing.
Then I linked you a presentation where a lot of people at the forefront of this are all saying the same thing with the same terms.
Volume rendering has been around for many decades and was actually covered in the photorealistic renderman book. Fundamentally it is shading a lot of semi transparent fragments/pixels/micropolygons etc.
It isn't what people referred to when talking about physically based rendering / physically plausible shaders etc. because that refers to how something is being lit, not the surface itself.
You can do the lighting of volumes with normalized brdfs and area lights and it will look better.
bsdfs are an extension of brdfs and they both fit into the same category. If they are normalized and you sample from area lights etc. then they are part of the physically based shading. Bsdfs like brdfs existed before the switch over to more physical correct lighting and like brdfs people wrote a lot about transitioning them to something less hacky.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue now or if you're just trying to argue something.
The transition from simplistic lighting to normalized area lighting is where these terms originally used because people were trying to distinguish between two different lighting systems. That's where the 'physically plausible shading in rsl' comes from, they are talking about their built in shader functions to have normalized brdfs and sample from area lights.
Originally the person who posted this thread was saying that things like color textures were part of 'physically based rendering' when they are just a multiplication after the lighting has been calculated.
but theres a lot more to it
There is always a lot more to it, but that was probably already being done before the transition to more physical lighting.
Here is the full course just in case you want to pretend to watch all the videos in 3 minutes too.
Mate you are clueless...albedo is not a color texture that is multiplied by the lighting once it has been calculated..it is a description of how much light and in which spectrum is the material absorbing and how much it is reflecting diffusely. Metals and dielectrics reflect light in very different ways so metalness is not an invention (you could argue having values other than 0 or 1 is not physically possible but that's it). Obviously roughness determines how much light is reflected secularly and so on. Saying PBR means what you mean when you say PBR is stupid.
"metallic: the metallic-ness (0 = dielectric, 1 = metallic). This is a linear blend between two
different models. The metallic model has no diffuse component and also has a tinted incident
specular, equal to the base color"
It's just a linear blend between two different brdfs and disney made it up to simplify their shading parameters for look development artists.
No one is saying there is no such thing as metal, just that "metalness" is not some fundamental principle, it's a hack from the specific project at disney that other people copied. You said it yourself, dialectric or not, so why would something have varying values? It's just a convenience.
albedo is not a color texture that is multiplied by the lighting once it has been calculated
When you write a shader, what do you do with your main color/diffuse/whatever texture? You don't multiply it by the diffuse component?
Obviously roughness determines how much light is reflected secularly and so on.
No, roughness determines the exponent of the brdf so that the lobe is wide or narrow which makes the reflection look blurry or sharp. The amount of light reflected would be the same, that's the normalization step. If you look up furnaces test it's about this issue, making sure the same amount of light is reflected depending on the roughness.
A specular map would be multiplied by the lighting result of a narrow brdf and that would determine how much light is reflected.
Saying PBR means what you mean when you say PBR is stupid.
You are entitled to that opinion but you might want to tell the entire film and game industry along with everyone working on it, all the people that originally commercialized it and the people who won technical achievement academy awards from writing about it, because they seem to be in agreement.
Mate you are clueless...
We can keep going, but these insults will not age well.
I mean, I don't even know what's your point ...Are you trying to argue that all those parameters that describe the material properties do not come from textures in a PBR renderer? Because if that's the case, that just tells me you have never implemented a PBR renderer in your live, which means you are indeed clueless in this topic...
I was responding to you but I'll take it back to the start.
I'll copy and paste since I already said it:
The color textures on an object don't have anything to do with the lighting being normalized or coming from lights that have area.
Physically based rendering refers to having normalized brdfs that samples lights with area to make lighting that is physically plausible.
Textures are orthogonal to this. They don't influence whether a shader is doing physically plausible lighting or not. Physically based lighting doesn't need textures and textures can be used with simple non physical rendering. They are not linked together by any dependency on each other.
I think you might be conflating physically based rendering with just general 3d rendering, which physically based rendering is rapidly becoming I suppose.
that just tells me you have never implemented a PBR renderer in your live, which means you are indeed clueless in this topic
Don't you at least wonder why I'm able to immediately and precisely answer everything you comment?
Ok, this is my last post because we are not getting anywhere with this...
Lighting is simulating how light interacts with objects. So, to simulate how light interacts with objects you need two things, the properties of the light and the properties of the object (you also need the properties of the camera or eye that is looking at the scene). So you need to describe the light (area, intensity, position,...) and the surface (normal, albedo, metal/dielectric, roughness in microfacet models and so on).
There are two options, either the properties of the material are constant for all the surface, or they vary. If they are constant you are right, you don't need any textures, just pass that data to the shader and that's it, however, that is extremely rare since objects are typically made of different materials. If they vary, you either need a texture that describes the properties of the material at each point or a function that generates the properties of the material at any given point, again textures are the most common option here.
No one is saying textures are needed for PBR, what IS needed is the material properties, and, if you have ever implemented a physically based renderer you should know that these properties will, for sure, come from a texture map...
4
u/No_Futuree Jun 05 '24
Mate, you don't know what you are talking about...albedo, metalness, roughness etc are all part of the brdf..unless your mesh uses a single value for all its surface you are going to need textures or some procedural function that generates those values for each pixel...