I was a bit curious so I checked on some applications of this, it's interesting to see that skyboxes are generally cube mapping (although skydomes also exist I believe skyboxes are more often). By doing this it's easier computationally but still gives the viewer an illusion of the sky.
jsun28
This image is really interesting to me as by mapping vectors to specific points on a cube from a central point, it renders a very realistic image of various surfaces and environments. When looking at this image, you can see how the image warps along the cubes edges to create the view of different dimensions. However, it's interesting how you can see the image changing more through the architecture rather than the people. This is probably because the people are a lot smaller in comparison to the architectural patterns so I'm curious how much of an influence size and patterns have on the reflections and refractions of the image.
eugene-yoojin-han
I was surprised by the fact that cubemaps are almost always better than spheremaps not just because of runtime but also because of efficiency. Even though there are six textures instead of one, I can still use a lower resolution and still get these same quality. In lots of 3D software (ex. Cinema4D), spheremaps are most often used for lighting, which is why I have always thought that spheremaps are better. This is very interesting!
I was a bit curious so I checked on some applications of this, it's interesting to see that skyboxes are generally cube mapping (although skydomes also exist I believe skyboxes are more often). By doing this it's easier computationally but still gives the viewer an illusion of the sky.
This image is really interesting to me as by mapping vectors to specific points on a cube from a central point, it renders a very realistic image of various surfaces and environments. When looking at this image, you can see how the image warps along the cubes edges to create the view of different dimensions. However, it's interesting how you can see the image changing more through the architecture rather than the people. This is probably because the people are a lot smaller in comparison to the architectural patterns so I'm curious how much of an influence size and patterns have on the reflections and refractions of the image.
I was surprised by the fact that cubemaps are almost always better than spheremaps not just because of runtime but also because of efficiency. Even though there are six textures instead of one, I can still use a lower resolution and still get these same quality. In lots of 3D software (ex. Cinema4D), spheremaps are most often used for lighting, which is why I have always thought that spheremaps are better. This is very interesting!