Lecture 13: Global Illumination & Path Tracing (58)
edithllontop1
Is this the same concept that happens when you edit photos and you increase the brilliance for example?
AlexSchedel
Typically when you edit a photo in lightroom, or even just in your phones default photo editor, you are working with a static image. Here things are different because you have a full 3D model that you can simulate light through. When you increase brilliance in a photo often that is combination of increasing the brightness (how light an individual pixel is) and the contrast (how different the color of one pixel is from another)
Shruteek
This rendered image, on inspection, seems ridiculously bright, especially at the center of the back wall and underneath the rightmost reflective ball. Is this how such a scene would look in real life, given two reflective balls in a small room lit from above, or is this extreme lighting an unfortunate side effect of the rendering function (even thought the rendering function should be a good approximation of real life)?
CardiacMangoes
Like many others, I notice there's a lot of brightness peaking in this scene. As if you set the exposure on your camera too high. I think one way to fix this would be to consider a different color space such as ACES which is more color accurate and considers a larger dynamic range than other color spaces.
StaffDanCubed
I feel like either this is indeed how it is supposed to look like in real life, or there is some factor that wasn't considered. If I remember correctly, it was explained in lecture that global illumination is supposed to increase realism because light bounces indefinitely in the real world so we should simulate that. Here we see that the picture already looks like this after simulating 6 bounces for all light rays, so according to our intuition that real scene should look even brighter than this after infinitely many bounces! But intuitively this picture also looks way too bright already, so I wonder if we did not take enough dissipation into account? Or we should have toned down the brightness of the entire picture afterwards?
Is this the same concept that happens when you edit photos and you increase the brilliance for example?
Typically when you edit a photo in lightroom, or even just in your phones default photo editor, you are working with a static image. Here things are different because you have a full 3D model that you can simulate light through. When you increase brilliance in a photo often that is combination of increasing the brightness (how light an individual pixel is) and the contrast (how different the color of one pixel is from another)
This rendered image, on inspection, seems ridiculously bright, especially at the center of the back wall and underneath the rightmost reflective ball. Is this how such a scene would look in real life, given two reflective balls in a small room lit from above, or is this extreme lighting an unfortunate side effect of the rendering function (even thought the rendering function should be a good approximation of real life)?
Like many others, I notice there's a lot of brightness peaking in this scene. As if you set the exposure on your camera too high. I think one way to fix this would be to consider a different color space such as ACES which is more color accurate and considers a larger dynamic range than other color spaces.
I feel like either this is indeed how it is supposed to look like in real life, or there is some factor that wasn't considered. If I remember correctly, it was explained in lecture that global illumination is supposed to increase realism because light bounces indefinitely in the real world so we should simulate that. Here we see that the picture already looks like this after simulating 6 bounces for all light rays, so according to our intuition that real scene should look even brighter than this after infinitely many bounces! But intuitively this picture also looks way too bright already, so I wonder if we did not take enough dissipation into account? Or we should have toned down the brightness of the entire picture afterwards?