I understand the difference between Lambert and Phong in general computer graphics. I also understand how we can change and create our own materials using three.js. But I cannot work out the difference between MeshLambertMaterial and MeshPhongMaterial in their default states.
I have tried switching them on a scene with one directional light source and 125 spheres, I cannot see any differences whatsoever. Three.js is being used in a chapter of my book and so I need to make sure all information is accurate and precise.
Thanks,
Shane
Shane, it's not your fault that you're confused.
Lambert is an illumination model (with a physical basis) for the light reflected off a surface, expressed in terms of the incoming illumination's direction with respect to the surface normal at the point of incidence.
Phong is a more nuanced shading model (albeit a more hacky one) which says that light is composed of ambient + diffuse + specular components. It treats the ambient component as constant everywhere (hack!), the diffuse component using the Lambertian model above, and the specular component using a power-law falloff (which is a clever hack, roughly approximating actual BRDFs).
The word "Phong" is also an interpolation method (when used in the context of modern triangle-based rendering pipelines). When computing the illumination at a pixel in the interior of a triangle, you have two choices:
Gouraud shading: Compute the color at the three vertices and interpolate in the interior, using barycentric coordinates, or
Phong shading: Using the normal at the three vertices, interpolate the normal in the interior and compute the shading using this interpolated normal at each pixel.
This is why (as #RayToal pointed out), if your specular "highlight" falls in the interior of a triangle, none of the vertices will be bright, but Phong shading will interpolate the normal and there will be a bright spot in the interior of your rendered triangle.
I am assuming you want the exact difference between MeshLambertMaterial and MeshPhongMaterial as implemented in three.js.
You have to differentiate between the shading model and the illumination model. Three.js does not implement 'pure' Phong or Lambert models.
For MeshLambertMaterial, the illumination calculation is performed at each vertex, and the resulting color is interpolated across the face of the polygon. ( Gouraud shading; (generalized) Lambert illumination model )
For MeshPhongMaterial, vertex normals are interpolated across the surface of the polygon, and the illumination calculation is performed at each texel. ( Phong shading; (generalized) Phong illumination model )
You will see a clear difference when you have a pointLight that is close to a face -- especially if the light's attenuation distance is less than the distance to the face's vertices.
For both materials, in the case of FlatShading, the face normal replaces each vertex normal.
three.js.r.66
In computer graphics, it is very common to confuse Phong reflection model with Phong shading. While former is a model of local illumination of points like Lambertian, the later is an interpolation method like Gouraud shading. In case you find it hard to differentiate between them, here's a list of detailed articles on each of these topics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_shading_algorithms
If you know a little GLSL, I think the best thing for you to do is to look at the vertex/fragment shaders generated in both cases and look for the differences. You can use http://benvanik.github.com/WebGL-Inspector/ to get the code of the programs, or put a console.log() at the right place in three js sources (look for buildProgram, you should output prefix_fragment + fragmentShader and prefix_vertex + vertexShader to see the program code).
Also, you can have a look to the building blocks used to create both shaders:
Lambert: https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/renderers/WebGLShaders.js#L2036
Phong: https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/renderers/WebGLShaders.js#L2157
It may be more readable than to look at the source program code.
Related
I've been working on creating my own ray tracer and I implemented surface shading using the Phong illumination model. I'm looking to make it look more realistic so I'm looking at different models. Is this what is also used for commercial renderers (i.e., Renderman, Arnold)? Or are there other ones that are used more (Blinn-Phong, Beckman Distribution, etc.)?
Renderman and friends are all programmable renderers, so the user can implement whatever shading model is desired, even using different shading models on different objects in a scene. I wrote one using the modulus operator to simulate a faceted surface where the underlying geometry was smooth, for example. Also, the operation of the rendering model is generally driven by multiple hand-painted or procedurally generated maps, so for example a map could specify a broader specular highlight in one area, and narrower in another.
That said, Lambert diffuse shading with Phong specular shading is the basic starting point.
So a polygon mesh is defined as the following:
class Triangle{
int vertices[3]; //vertex indices
float nx, ny, nz; //face-plane normal
};
Is this a convenient way to represent a mesh used with flat shading? Explain
Suggest an object for which this is a good mesh format when used with Gouraud shading. Explain
Suggest an object for which this is a bad mesh format when used with Gouraud shading. Explain
So for 1, I said yes because the face plane normal can be easily converted to a point in the middle of the face. I read somewhere that normals don't have positions?
For 2 I said a ball; more gentle angles
And 3 a box; steeper angles.
I don't know, I don't think I really understand what the normal vector is.
mostly yes
from geometry computations is this OK however from rendering aspect having triangles in indices form only can be sometimes problematic (depends on the rendering engine, HW, etc). Usually is faster to have the triangle points directly in vector form instead of just indexes sometimes triangle contains both... However that is wasting space.
depends on how you classify what is OK and what not.
smooth objects like sphere will look like this
while flat side meshes like cube will be rendered without visible distortions in shape (but with flat shaded like colors only so lighting will be corrupted)
So answer to this is depend on what you want to achieve less lighting error, or better shape recognition or what. Basically using 1 normal for face will turn Gourard into flat shading.
Lighting can be improved by dividing big flat surfaces into more triangles
is unanswerable exactly for the same reasons as #2
So if you want to answer #2,#3 you need to clarify what it means good and bad ...
There are some 3D applications which can cast shadow or silhouette below 3D models. They render pretty fast and smooth. I wonder what kind of technology is the standard procedure to get 3D model shadow/silhouette.
For example is there any C++ library like libigl or CGAL to get shadow/silhouette pretty fast? Or maybe GLSL shading is used? Any hint would be appreciated on the standard technology stack.
For rendering, it's trivial. Just project the vertices to the surface (for the case of the XY plane, this just entails setting the Z coordinate to 0) and render the triangles. There'll be a lot of overlap, but since you're just rendering that won't matter.
If you're trying to build a set of polygons representing the silhouette shape, you'll need to instead union the projected triangles using something like the Vatti clipping algorithm.
Computing shadows is a vast and uneasy topic. In the real world, light sources are extended and the shadow edges are not sharp (there is penumbra). Then there are cast shadows, and even self-shadows.
If you limit yourself to punctual light sources (hence sharp shadows), there is a simple principle: if you place an observer at the light source, the faces he will see are illuminated by that light source. Conversely, the hidden surfaces are in the shadow.
For correct rendering, the shadowed areas should be back-projected to the scene and painted black.
By nature, the ray-tracing techniques make this process easy to implement.
I know that there are 4 techniques to draw 3D objects:
(1) Wireframe Modeling and rendering, (2) Additive Modeling, (3) Subtractive Modeling, (4) Splines and curves.
Then, those models go through hidden surface removal algorithm.
Am I correct?
Be that way, What formula or algorithm can I use to draw a 3D Sphere?
I am using a low-level library named WinBGIm from colorado university.
there are 4 techniques to draw 3D objects:
(1) Wireframe Modeling and rendering, (2) Additive Modeling, (3) Subtractive Modeling, (4) Splines and curves.
These are modelling techniques and not rendering techniques. They allow you to mathematically define your mesh's geometry. How you render this data on to a 2D canvas is another story.
There are two fundamental approaches to rendering 3D models on a 2D canvas.
Ray Tracing
The basic idea of ray tracing is to pass a ray from the camera's origin, through the point on the canvas whose colour needs to be determined. Determine which models get hit by it and pick the closest one, determine how it's lit to compute the colour there. This is done by further tracing rays from the hit point to all the light sources in the scene. If you notice, this approach eliminates the need to use hidden surface determination algorithms like the back face culling, z-buffer, etc. since the basic idea is rooted on a hidden surface algorithm (ray tracing).
There are packages, libraries, etc. that help you do this. However, it's common that ray tracers are written from scratch as a college-level project. However, this approach takes more time to render (not to code), but the results are generally more pleasing than the below one. This approach is more popular when you want to render non-interactive visuals like movies.
Rasterization
This approach takes primitives (triangles and quads) that define the models in the scene and sample them at regular intervals (screen pixels they cover) and write it on to a colour buffer. Here hidden surface is usually eliminated using the Z-buffer; a buffer that stores the z-order of the fragment and the closer one wins, when writing to the colour buffer.
Rasterization is the more popular approach with cheap hardware support for it available on most modern computers due to years of research and money that has gone in to it. Libraries like OpenGL and Direct3D are readily available to facilitate development. Although the results are less pleasing than ray tracing, it's faster to render and thus is widely used in interactive, real-time rendering like games.
If you want to not use those libraries, then you have to do what is commonly known as software rendering i.e. you will end up doing what these libraries do.
What formula or algorithm can I use to draw a 3D Sphere?
Depends on which one of the above you choose. If you simply rasterize a 3D sphere in 2D with orthographic projection, all you have to do is draw a circle on the canvas.
If you are looking for hidden lines removal (drawing the edges rather than the inside of the faces), the solution is easy: "back face culling".
Every edge of your model belongs to two faces. For every face you can compute the normal vector and check if it is facing to the observer (by the sign of the dot product of the normal and the direction of the projection line); in other words, if the observer is located in the outer half-space defined by the plane of the face. Then an edge is wholly visible if and only if it belongs to at least one front face.
Usual discretization of the sphere are made by drawing equidistant parallels and meridians. It may be advantageous to adjust the spacing of the parallels so that all tiles are about the same area.
What's the difference between mesh and geometry? Aren't they the same? i.e. collection of vertices that form triangles?
A point is geometry, but it is not a mesh. A curve is geometry, but it is not a mesh. An iso-surface is geometry, but it is not... enfin you get the point by now.
Meshes are geometry, not the other way around.
Geometry in the context of computing is far more limited that geometry as a branch of mathematics. There are only a few types of geometry typically used in computer graphics. Sprites are used when rendering points (particles), line segments are used when rendering curves and meshes are used when rendering surface-like geometry.
A mesh is typically a collection of polygons/geometric objects. For instance triangles, quads or a mixture of various polygons. A mesh is simply a more complex shape.
From Wikipedia:
Geometry is a part of mathematics
concerned with questions of size,
shape, and relative position of
figures and with properties of space
IMO a mesh falls under that criteria.
In the context implied by your question:
A mesh is a collection of polygons arranged in such a way that each polygon shares at least one vertex with another polygon in that collection. You can reach any polygon in a mesh from any other polygon in that mesh by traversing the edges and vertices that define those polygons.
Geometry refers to any object in space whose properties may be described according to the principles of the branch of mathematics known as geometry.
That the term "geometry" has different meanings mathematically and in rendering. In rendering it usually denotes what is static in a scene (walls, etc.) What is widely called a "mesh" is a group of geometrical objects (basically triangles) that describe or form an "object" in the scene - pretty much like envalid said it, but usually a mesh forms a single object or entity in a scene. Very often that is how rendering engines use the term: The geometrical data of each scene element (object, entity) composes that element's mesh.
Although this is tagged in "graphics", I think the answer connects with the interpretation from computational physics. There, we usually think of the geometry as an abstraction of the system that is to be represented/simulated, while the mesh is an approximation of the geometry - a compromise we usually have to make to be able to represent the spatial domain within the finite memory of the machine.
You can think of them basically as regular or unstructured sets of points "sprayed" on a surface or within a volume in space.
To be able to do visualization/simulation, it is also necessary to determine the neighbors of each point - for example using Delaunay triangulation which allows you to group sets of points into elements (for which you can solve algebraic versions of the equations describing your system).
In the context of surface representation in computer graphics, I think all major APIs (e.g. OpenGL) have functions which can display these primitives (which can be triangles as given by Delaunay, quads or maybe some other elements).