Mario Marengo Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Hi all, I started sketching the entry on Reflectance Functions (BRDFs) over at the wiki, and suddenly I'm faced with a bit of a labeling conundrum... See; all the literature out there tends to use certain symbols to refer to things like the incidence vector, the reflection vector, etc. Problem is, the conventions they've developed over the years are *not* the same as what shader writers have come up with -- so that, where a shader writer has grown up calling the direction to the viewer "V", a SIGGRAPH paper will refer to it using some Greek letter instead. Neither camp is totally consistent, but they are somewhat uniform nonetheless. My current thinking is that you'd want to be exposed to both, so that translating someone else's BRDF from SL for example, feels familiar (i.e: you recognize the variable names right away), and when checking out some siggraph paper you don't feel totally lost... I'm just as comfortable with both styles, so I don't have any strong opinions either way. But I recognize that it is something that could have a big impact on someone who is just starting to read up on the subject. The way I was headed with it was going to follow choice 4: "Consistently academic, but with a mapping to shader style". But if you hate that idea, then this would be a good time to say so. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted December 1, 2004 Author Share Posted December 1, 2004 Uh Oh... Given that one of the votes for #4 is mine, it looks like it's time to flip a coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted December 2, 2004 Author Share Posted December 2, 2004 Hmmmm... OK. Let me ask it another way then: Do any of the people who voted for #3 find any of what's already there incredibly confusing? It's just that I'm thinking ahead to when it turns fully 3D and I have to introduce solid angles, differential areas, polar coordinates, and all that jazz... there won't be any "shader-style" equivalent at that point anyway, and if I haven't warmed you up to the idea of seeing Greek symbols by that point, then it will suddenly all feel threatening, and you might just "tune out"... Unless I hear a good reason against it, I think I'll stick to #4 then... I just have to make sure I do a good job of making the mapping to shader-style really clear... maybe I'll pepper the early stuff with VEX snippets to get everyone comfy with the duality in terminology... Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I voted for #3, but #4 sounds great to me too. I'm just enjoying the whole damn thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 Those new pages are very clear and concise, thanks Mario! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted December 8, 2004 Author Share Posted December 8, 2004 Thanks Jason But as I said before, if anyone is drawing a resounding "HUH?!?" from the whole thing (or parts of it), then please let me know. I'm about to start to tie things in to the application side now (shaders), so I'm particularly interested to hear if I start loosing people there, since, if that bridge fails, then the whole thing is kind'a doomed... Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 I think it's awesome. Definitely has the right balance of techy math stuff vs normal human readable shader stuff . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.