<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>UncleZeiv&#039;s Corner &#187; tests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/tag/tests/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://unclezeiv.kerid.org</link>
	<description>still in love with underscores</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:30:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Lightcuts: week 2</title>
		<link>http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/2008/06/lightcuts-week-2?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lightcuts-week-2</link>
		<comments>http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/2008/06/lightcuts-week-2#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>UncleZeiv</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Graphics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GSoC 2008]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lightcuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tests]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/?p=19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A quick update from last week that I couldn&#8217;t find the time to finalize. I post it now as it discusses a couple of interesting issues. Btw, week numbering refers to the official GSoC timeframe. &#8212; UncleZeiv The scene shown below &#8212; an ordinary Suzanne lit by 15000 colored lights &#8212; was sent by an [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;"><em>A quick update from last week that I couldn&#8217;t find the time to finalize. I post it now as it discusses a couple of interesting issues. Btw, week numbering refers to the official GSoC timeframe.</em> &#8212; UncleZeiv</p>
<p>The scene shown below &#8212; an ordinary Suzanne lit by 15000 colored lights &#8212; was sent by an early tester (thanks bullx) who found some noticeable artifacts when comparing the Lightcuts rendering to the plain one, despite following the instructions given in my <a href="http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/2008/05/playing-with-a-working-prototype" target="_blank">previous post</a>. It was indeed a bug that <a href="http://projects.blender.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php?view=rev&amp;root=bf-blender&amp;revision=15107" target="_blank">I finally found</a> after a longish hunt. This is to say that <strong>early testing is indeed doable and welcome</strong>!</p>
<p>On the other hand, the reference 800&#215;600 rendering using the traditional pipeline, according to the tester, took nothing less than 4 hours (it&#8217;s not displayed here). I have to admit, though, that <strong>this is not a fair comparison</strong>, since you can&#8217;t select &#8220;pure&#8221; single sampled shadows from the UI for the traditional pipeline &#8212; you are always forced to use the better quality, but slower, QMC code. [<em><strong>Note</strong>: I restored the possibility to select singled sampled lights from the UI in revision <a href="http://projects.blender.org/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php?view=rev&amp;root=bf-blender&amp;revision=15183" target="_blank">15183</a>.</em>]</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t use that because in this context you don&#8217;t care if a single light is actually low quality or produces ugly hard shadows: on average the contribution from a single light will be fairly small and will be <strong>softened and corrected by the contribution from the other lights</strong>. Alas, this may not be the case if a small number of lights is significantly more intense than the average; that situation may require a special treatment.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/download/2008/06/comparison.png"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-18 aligncenter" title="Error comparison" src="http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/download/2008/06/comparison-400x400.png" alt="Error comparison" width="400" height="400" /></a></p>
<p>Finally, I wanted to show an example of false color renderings, which are an invaluable tool to see at a glance <strong>how the algorithm is performing behind the scenes</strong>. Each color channel bears a different meaning &#8212; which is, by the way, liable to change frequently during development (it already has a couple of times).</p>
<p>Right now, the red channel is the most important and is proportional to <strong>the ratio between the number of evaluated lights and the maximum number allowed</strong>, that is, the maximum cut size. (If this figure is higher than the current number of lights, the latter is used).</p>
<p>As you can see from the picture, <strong>more lights get evaluated in darker regions</strong>: this may sound counterintuitive but is the direct result of using <strong>a relative error metric</strong>. The darker the region, the lower the absolute error allowed. This is particularly apparent in the second rendering, where a higher error threshold was selected.</p>
<p>The second picture gives also an idea of how image quality degrades by raising the allowed error.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://unclezeiv.kerid.org/2008/06/lightcuts-week-2/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

