Disney's Practical Guide to Path Tracing [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
http://www.disneyanimation.com/technology/innovations/hyperi...
If you want to learn more about rendering then here is some more info:
Stanford CS348b course notes:
http://candela.stanford.edu/cs348b/doku.php
Cornell CS6630 course notes:
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Courses/cs6630/2012sp/schedule.stm
Eric Veach's Phd thesis:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/veach_thesis/
Physically Based Rendering: From Theory to Implementation by Matt Pharr, Greg Humphreys and Wenzel Jakob (book and open source implementation of a state of the art renderer):
They've added other cool new stuff too, such as volumetric path tracing, progressive photon mapping, hair (bezier curves with a Kaijya-Kay BSDF) and a Photon Beam Diffusion BSSRDF.
Though they don't use the batching method outlined in the video - it would be interesting to see PBRT modified to do it and compare the resulting efficiency in rendering.
You are right though that it would be fascinating to see the speed difference. My guess is that it would be substantial.
Even compiling PBRT with Intel C++ instead of Microsoft's C++ compiler gives a %30 - %50 speedup, likely due to reordering instructions for better memory coherency on a granular level (batching rays would give better memory coherency on a very broad level).
Ptex really chokes with non-coherant texture accesses (partly due to the anisotropic filtering method it uses) in terms of thread scalability, so Disney have gone to great lengths to get around this issue. Doing such accurate texture filtering (the same goes for standard UV EWA filtering) is technically better, but is expensive, especially in a path-tracing context, where the whole point is to amortise the cost of shading over all the rays by making each intersection / shading calculation as cheap as possible.
From what I hear there are big downsides to this current implementation: the streaming of batches is pretty much off-line, so time till "first pixel" is significant, and thus you don't get interactive rendering functionality.
This reminds me very much of one of my favorite Disney videos that I showed my daughter long ago. It's this clip of four very talented cell animators out practicing their Art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JK9uQNBDxQ
The whole thing is whimsical while also being very educating. Really glad that Disney is keeping this kind of stuff up.
Certain things are so grossly oversimplified, they are misleading.
For example, how does sorting rays following similar direction help? The history book analogy is appalling. It might give the misguided interpretation to a kid that it is always better to sort items - e.g. before summing a few numbers, may be sorting them is a good idea, or before map operations may be sorting them will ease the task for a computer, etc.
The big thing they were trying to get at is there are some clever tricks we can do to make these massive calculations more efficient.
They're probably alluding to Disney's Hyperion renderer[1]. Sorting rays helps with cache coherency.
[1] https://disney-animation.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/production...
What they are saying here is wrong or rather extremely simplified for a younger audience.
For instance: a beam hits some material and needs to reflect or worse, pass through via transparency. Another issue: If we are calculating on a per pixel basis, that means bundling multiple paths together to figure out what the weighted return will look like. How can this all be computed with any kind of efficiency without cheating?
- Trace random paths from light sources until they terminate (usually decided with Russian roulette).
- Trace random paths from the camera (usually N per pixel, or you can use more paths in noisy areas) until they terminate.
- Try to connect each point in a camera path with each point in a light path, using a simple line test. If it succeeds, that color is added to the pixel from which the camera path originated.
At least that's my understanding; I've only implemented simpler algorithms and read a bit about bidirectional path tracing.
> If we are calculating on a per pixel basis, that means bundling multiple paths together to figure out what the weighted return will look like. How can this all be computed with any kind of efficiency without cheating?
Right, we still need to consider many paths per pixel to get a high quality image. But it converges faster than most other Monte Carlo techniques.
If the surface is refractive/reflective, recursively shoot one more ray calculating the right direction, with correctly diminished intensity and follow the same process.
Keep in mind that there is a very mathematical foundation to all this, we're not just tracing paths for the fun of it. Basically what we want to solve is a path integral (an integral over all paths), we do this using a technique called Monte Carlo integration (which basically means we use randomness). We first sample a path (using path tracing) and then we calculate the contribution of that path (which basically is the amount of radiance is carries divided by the probability of sampling the path) and then we add that contribution to the right pixel.
They do simplify things a bit though. Normally we don't trace one path at a time, but we trace multiple of them. Each time we intersect with an object we do not only create another ray to continue to path, but we also sample a point on a light and we connect the two points by a ray to finish the path. This process is called Next Event Estimation and we can combine both 'accidental' paths and 'connected' paths by using a technique called Multiple Importance Sampling (MIS).
Lots of caveats here, of course. You do need to also sample light going in other directions, since the sun isn't the only light source (other objects reflect). You can only do this on diffuse surfaces, so you need to keep going until you hit a diffuse surfaces. Most surfaces are partly diffuse partly specular, etc. so you'll actually want to sample both straight towards the light source and off in other angles.
But what does the most simple path tracer look like? You shoot rays from the camera. If it hits a diffuse surface, bounce a ray toward each light, adding that light if that ray isn't obstructed from the light. If it hits a specular surface, bounce off based on the surface and ray orientations, and recurse when you hit another surface. You see how we cheat? If everything is diffuse, then we only ever make one bounce, straight from us to the sun. But that's a great first order approximation, since sunlight is so much brighter than reflected light. Same approach works for more bounces; just end with it trying to hit the sun.
http://www.disneyanimation.com/technology/innovations/hyperi...
For a nice overview of Disney's proprietary Hyperion renderer that implements this light bundling technique (and a whole lot more), see : http://www.fxguide.com/featured/disneys-new-production-rende...
Off-topic question: Why is this video unlisted?
Take a look at this site to see their papers and videos: http://www.disneyanimation.com/technology/publications
Kind of odd, but I could see an argument being made against confusion of their clientele.
The global illumination tech used on monsters university was just standard path tracing with physically-plausible sharers - the first time pixar had used that instead of radiosity caching. Other studios have been using path tracing for years before - pixars lighters are very good however, so the results are very good.