I see why we can represent a box as an intersection of 3 slabs. However, I'm not exactly sure why this is better. Is the idea that if we used 6 faces, we would have to compute shadow rays and ray trajectories for all 6 faces, whereas if we use 3 slabs we only do this for each of the slabs? Or is there some other reason why this method is better?
NKJEW
@CarneAsadaFry I'm guessing that it is indeed because of the simplified complexity of calculating intersection - the fact that opposite faces are parallel is an exploitable simplification that means that, for each "test", we only need to check values along one dimension.
I see why we can represent a box as an intersection of 3 slabs. However, I'm not exactly sure why this is better. Is the idea that if we used 6 faces, we would have to compute shadow rays and ray trajectories for all 6 faces, whereas if we use 3 slabs we only do this for each of the slabs? Or is there some other reason why this method is better?
@CarneAsadaFry I'm guessing that it is indeed because of the simplified complexity of calculating intersection - the fact that opposite faces are parallel is an exploitable simplification that means that, for each "test", we only need to check values along one dimension.