Problems Raytracing Doesn't Solve

http://blackhole12.blogspot.com/2012/09/7-problems-raytracing-doesnt-solve.html

by blackhole • 14 years ago

28 24 14 years ago

blackhole12.blogspot.com

I believe raytracing is normally done from each pixel on the screen, into the world that is being rendered. Not "a bajillion rays" from the light sources in the scene. I.e. there is always a constant number of rays for each frame.

ZoFreX• 14 years ago

Technically what you described is "reverse ray tracing" but yes, these days most people just call it ray tracing.

jerico2day• 14 years ago

I find most people would call it raycasting (shooting rays from the screen/eye out into the world).

sampo• 14 years ago

''It might seem that we would need only to run a conventional ray tracer "backward" from the light sources to the eye to achieve these effects. This concept has been called backward ray tracing, to indicate that it runs in the reverse direction from regular ray tracing, but it is also known as forward ray tracing to stress that it follows the actual path from the lights to the eye. We call it ray tracing from the light sources to avoid confusion!''

Foley et al., Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice, p. 792.

struppi• 14 years ago

You are right. The author has absolutely no clue what he is writing about. Just like what you pointed out.

He also claims raytracing does not solve photorealism, but does not back this claim. No single argument why! [Edit: But he's right here, for photorealism you probably want a combination of methods, like ray tracing and radiosity or ray tracing and photon mapping]

Complexity: For raytracing, you can store the scene in very efficient data structures, so you do NOT have to search your "billions of triangles" for each ray. Also, you can make sure rays degrade quickly since you trace them from the camera backwards to the light source, as you have pointed out.

"How do you raytrace stars"? They are a light source at infinite distance. This is a solved problem in computer graphics - And a pretty simple one at that.

Materials, Physics, Content and AI have nothing to do with computer graphics AT ALL.

blackhole• 14 years ago

Storing triangles in a super efficient data structure is precisely what I mean by traversing the scene. Do you really think that's a free operation when you have billions of triangles inside a data structure that must be dynamic by nature? You hit all sorts of arcane memory issues. I hit the same thing just developing a basic kd-tree for 2D culling.

The approximation algorithms I pointed out are exactly how raytracing is done backwards, but actually still must use a combination of camera rays and light source rays in a stocastic method in order to determine a path from the camera to the light source. Brute force raytracing is, in fact, just shooting out rays from the light sources. That's obviously inefficient, which is why we have the backwards lighting attempts, as discussed in the article.

Raytracing stars is not as simply as you think, not when you can visit them. They can no longer be point sources at infinite distance because the object itself is not infinitely far away, so you therefore can only substitute an infinite light source in when its essentially a point, which gets really nasty when you are dealing with entire galaxies as light sources, and if it isn't you must deal with all the lighting effects in between.

Materials are the most important part of computer graphics. If you don't think this, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Jach• 14 years ago

> Materials, Physics, Content and AI have nothing to do with computer graphics AT ALL.

What do you mean by computer graphics? If you restrict the job of a computer graphics programmer to purely a function of how many polygons can be rendered at once at 60fps, you may be right... But such a programmer would ignore information about the scene at his or her peril.

Materials: what should this object look like when it interacts with other objects? Does dirt stick, what does it look like inside if it gets cut in two, would a smooth cut even be possible, what about just trying to make a dent with a blunt object? If a flashlight is shined at the material, how does the material react?

Physics: help define how materials behave. (Indeed if we could model everything on the level of real-life quarks the need for explicitly defined materials goes away.) What's fluid supposed to look like? What about when a player character is swimming? Can we sacrifice polygon counts for distant objects, or are distant objects important in the game's physical world? What does wind do to the grass polygons? Could we use less polygons to represent quickly-moving things where the level of detail is going to be poor anyway?

Content: Does an artist need to create two copies of Tree so we can model-swap the low-poly one when appropriate? Do we need to cut content to be able to render at reasonable speeds? Do we need more content to render something worth rendering? Do we have any content to put on the screen at all?

AI: Depends if you consider procedural generation of content AI or not. Also depends if you consider a subroutine that helps optimize your graphics pipeline during runtime AI or not. Then there's the problem of many and nice animations, which you may or may not consider important to "computer graphics".

berkut• 14 years ago

Not really. First of all there's multiple samples per pixel for anti-aliasing and even more when doing stocastic sampling from the circle of confusion for DOF and motion blur, so you normally need 128-512 samples per pixel.

Then for each light (unless you randomly sample a light each time - which introduces more noise), you need to test occlusion from each surface hit to check for shadows. So each pixel sample that has a solid alpha (it hit an object) needs to be tested against lights with a ray.

Then with GI pathtracing, you need to bounce the light around the scene even for diffuse (non-shiny) surfaces.

The article's still mostly rubbish though...

vilya3• 14 years ago

The entire article seems to be founded on misconceptions about raytracing and a wilful misunderstanding of what is meant by photorealism. Don't waste your time.

danielbarla• 14 years ago

Yeah, honestly, I stopped reading at the argument of 20 to 30 bounces not being enough to render a kitchen. I mean, this is still around 19 to 29 times more than what traditional 3D methods are using for environmental mapping. But more importantly, I don't think it's common (even in a kitchen) to have more than a handful of "bounces" being visible - things tend to get small at that point (unless we're looking at two large, flat mirrors pointed at each other).

mattyppants• 14 years ago

So maybe they should have called it. "3 problems that raytracing can't solve, and 4 other ones that just suck about modeling real life in 3d(on a 2d surface)".

anonymouz2• 14 years ago

From the article: "The game industry spends all its computational time trying to render a scene, leaving almost nothing left for the AI routines, forcing them to rely on techniques from 1968. Think about that - we are approaching the point where AI in games comes down to a 50-year old technique that was considered hopelessly outdated before I was even born."

This can hardly be considered a problem of ray tracing specifically. And the A* algorithm is a perfectly decent algorithm for path-finding. The notion that an algorithm that does its job should be disregarded just because it is old is ridiculous.

jiggy2011• 14 years ago

A* is fine if you have a single moving object navigating a static scene. Problem is that most game scenes aren't static so you either have to recalculate on every movement (very expensive) , break it down to smaller paths (possibly leading to very sub optimal paths) or wait for it to get stuck (at which point it might become impossible to be unstuck).

delinka2• 14 years ago

There's an entire field of research around realism in computer simulation and graphics. Raytracing is but one tool to solve the problems in this field. And there's at least one company who has monetized its efforts in this field: Pixar has been solving these problems for years. For quite some time, they've solved a handful of problems with each movie they made. Then, they release that knowledge in the newest version of Renderman. Now their products aren't cheap, nor is the educational material related to it, so I guess that complete "freedom" in the CGI space is quite a few years out, but I digress...

vilya3• 14 years ago

There are a LOT of companies monetising their efforts at making realistic computer graphics - including the one I work for. It's not just Pixar. :-)

delinka2• 14 years ago

"at least one..."

At most ... indefinite.

optymizer• 14 years ago

I think the author doesn't know how ray tracing is implemented.

> raytracing is the process of rendering a 3D scene by tracing the path of a beam of light after it is emitted from a light source, calculating its properties as it bounces off various objects in the world until it finally hits the virtual camera

With my limited knowledge of graphics, I was under the impression ray tracing works exactly the opposite way: one sends 1 ray per pixel (based on the size of the viewport) into the scene, bouncing it off objects (taking into account their material properties) to finally compute the color value for that pixel. It's the exact opposite of the real world (where the sun shines light on the objects and the rays end up hitting our retinas).

Reversing the process has the advantage of being finite: only 1024x768 (or 1920x1200,etc) rays will be sent from the viewport into the scene. In the author's scenario, there would be an infinite number of rays to be traced (light sources generally emit light in all direction and they try to emulate a real light source, which emits an infinite number of rays).

Am I completely wrong here? Is my whole world a lie?

anonymouz2• 14 years ago

Usually one starts at the eye and traces back through the scene. But the converse is also sometimes useful, and the terminology is slightly ambiguous (different people have called different variants "forward" and "backward" at different points in time...), Wikipedia has some details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing#Reversed_direction_...

> Am I completely wrong here?

No.

> Is my whole world a lie?

Yes.

moviewatcher• 14 years ago

so, traditionally, things that have been implemented in software, have then been implemented in hardware, to accelerate the process. Is this possible to do with raytracing?

Geee2• 14 years ago

Current GPUs are very suitable for ray tracing, because raytracing can be almost completely parallelized and GPUs are programmable nowadays. However, one problem (huge) is random memory access. When rays can bounce at objects scattered very far from each other, it's difficult to keep anything cached. Nevertheless, most current realtime raytracers are GPU implementations, some are hybrid GPU/CPU.

tsahyt• 14 years ago

There are a number of problems with this article. First, the way ray tracing is described is very odd. Rays aren't traced beginning from the light source that emitted them, but are shot from an "eye point" through a pixel on the screen and are then traced back to a light source (possibly with multiple bounces). Suppose all other operations are constant time, this yields a linear time rendering algorithm (linear with screen resolution). For some data structures this is ridiculously effective. The way it is described in the article is horribly inefficient. Not just that, it won't ever terminate since a light source theoretically emits an infinite number of rays that have to be traced. Infinite number of rays => Infinite time => algorithm never terminates. There are ways to solve that, yes, but in general rays are traced starting at the camera and end at the light source.

On to the paragraphs on photorealism. Yes, ray tracing won't solve this because you haven't even given it a problem yet. They're basically three paragraphs going on about how we don't know how to define photorealism. Yes, it is a bad term. Now, let me have a shot at defining realism in computer graphics: The easier I can mistake it for a real scene, the more realistic it is. What ray tracing does here is substantial! One of the main reasons why we can easily distinguish a computer generated scene (except for some scenes in movies nowadays that have been rendered off-line using thousands of hours of processor time) is lighting. We instinctively "feel" things that are odd about lighting. We're very sensitive to that. Ray tracing can provide better reflections and better shadows than almost any other rendering method and basically does them with just a couple of additional bounces. Given an efficient data structure this is one of the quicker ways to do real time lighting effects properly. To top that off, ray tracing can do proper refraction, proper ambient occlusion, interactive indirect illumination and a few other nice effects. Altogether this means one thing: stepping closer towards realism.

Concerning complexity, ray tracing itself doesn't offer a solution. As I've pointed out already, time complexity of ray tracing algorithms depends heavily on the data structures that are used for looking up collisions of rays with geometry. There are good ones, there are bad ones. What ray tracing does though is free occlusion. Only geometry that is visible is ever rendered. That is pointed out in the article as well. What rubs me the wrong way here is "it still has to navigate through the scene representation". Obviously that is true, but as I just said, a lookup algorithm is not part of ray tracing. RT merely paves the way to use good data structures with it. It's not a problem ray tracing can solve, because it is a rendering algorithm, not a data structure.

The scale problem with the stars. Well that is really a memory problem. Again, an efficient data structure will work no matter the spatial distance a ray has to travel. How are entire solar systems simulated? Well, on that scale you get away decently with not loading everything at once into memory and fetching data when needed. I suspect that this is exactly what is done with current approaches and there's nothing that prevents you from doing the same while ray tracing the scene.

Materials like aerogel or clouds are volumetric effects. Ray tracing is perfect for this. In fact, off line rendering uses ray tracing almost exclusively to perform those stunts.

The physics argument doesn't hold properly because it assumes that we've implemented the renderer on the CPU and are therefore eating processor time in big lumps. It would be suboptimal to implement the ray tracer on the CPU, because RAM access times are usually slower than video memory access times from the GPU. Since we're dealing with large amounts of data in all 3D processing, it's a much better choice to use CUDA, Stream or OpenCL to program the GPU to do the entire raytracing and merely use the CPU for occasionally shovel data into video memory. To top that off, ray tracing is easy to parallelize, since the algorithm operates the same for each screen pixel. Modern GPUs are bloody brilliant at that. Use them! This leaves some room to process physics on the CPU, as well as game logic, AI, event processing, network code, etc.

I don't really get the content argument either. The content has to be made regardless of the rendering method. It's the same content after all. How does ray tracing make "it worse"(sic)?

TL;DR: Ray tracing is not a solution to all our problems but a good step forwards in real time rendering. What's really keeping is from implementing it in commercial engines yet is that it's not easily compatible with the polygonal representation of geometry. This is the problem that we should actually be solving.

Oh and by the way, the link labelled with "boring" is actually pretty impressive and far above anything any real-time rendering engine available today produces.

Problems Raytracing Doesn't Solve

Related Stories