How do we generate granular materials that do not necessarily have a defined pattern or sense of repetition (rocks that all have slightly different shapes/textures/etc...)? Is there an incorporation of randomness when doing these calculations?
@woakley5 Yes, procedural generation algorithms often use some form of a noise function to eliminate repetition and drawing things by hand. Check out Worley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worley_noise) or Perlin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perlin_noise) noise.
If we have a moving image where the same thing is re-rendered e.g. from different angles, is the noise applied consistent or does it actually change for each re-rendering?
I find this topic very interesting. Earlier in the lecture, glinty material was shown to model snow. However, now I am wondering if this type of granular method could be used using individual snowflakes instead?
I'm curious as to how we would easily model interactions between procedurally defined granules and physical forces such as air and water.
This is fascinating! In music, there's a type of sound design called granular synthesis which splits an audio sample into 10s to 1000s of tiny sub-samples called grains, and then manipulates the playbacks and individual effects chains of these grains to yield a unique new sound. I wonder what a similar pipeline might look like in generating a granular material from a more macro-scale material--perhaps it would act as an incinerator or shredder of sorts. As @clarkd2017 asked, I also wonder if this would make the resulting grains shinier--or whether the size, sampling method, etc., of each grain would make a drastic difference.