If these two are very similar, could we possibly simplify fur modelling to something that is easy to render? While it might not be completely the same, I feel like if we simplify parts of it, it would help improve the rendering time.
True, that's something I was thinking about when I saw the image. Parts of the bunny which are whiter and more washed out where the fur doesn't explicitly show could be approximated by some kind of cloud model and the outer edges where the fur actually shows could use the fur rendering.
Interestingly, there are different types of clouds when rendering. In 2015, there were at least 10 types of clouds (e.g. stratocumulus clouds) that had differing rendering processes. They are also rendered in multiple layers rather than one unified object. Read more here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915034286
I wonder that if we create a super real cloud that allows the camera to go through. How hard it will be to render the cloud from inside and generate a realistic simulation at the same time?
I wonder how to show/render different softness of different hairs, for example, the fluffy hair of a bunny is apparently different from human hair.
I was wondering if there were any other similarities between difficult to render approximations to something easier. Could something that's typically difficult to render like maybe water be approximated to something else?