Brombear wrote:But now back to squeen and his exploration in space, enough highjacking of this thread
Please hijack. This thread is about computer graphics.
You've probably heard the saying if it looks like computer graphics, then it's bad computer graphics. Well those shots definitely don't
look like computer graphics. In particular, I like the top of the car in the black & white airport image---how the glare from the window shield and roof merge into the single reflected color. (I'm curious, do you ever find yourself looking at real
objects now with the same critical eye you examine a rendering and think they sometimes look fake? Maybe its just me...
Now I understand you are a commercial outfit, so can't freely give away your secrets, but I'd like to turn your own question back at you. "What's your idea on dealing with the noise?" I don't see any noise in the images you posted, so I'm curious as to why you asked. How many rays/pixel? What kind of render times? Just wondering I'm wondering on how far away I am from professional grade applications.
Also, are you running Windows on the 32p machine?
Do you get 6 fsp with the same image quality you showed? If so, that absolutely incredible. How much is hardware (GL) and to what degree is it ray traced. With all the buzz, it seems as if real-time ray tracing is the new programmable shaders. Your comment about the Telsa is true, however I've heard its been difficult to get the K-d Tree etc. accelerators to run on the GPU because of the SIMD and data base access. Programming CUDA is supposed to have a small cache size (32K) or something like that, and that currently GPU based ray tracers are no faster than multicore CPU. However, NVIDIA did just hire Peter Shirley...
Your (or anyone's) thoughts?