skip to main content
10.1145/3305366.3328085acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
course

Path tracing in production: part 2: making movies

Published:28 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The last few years have seen a decisive move of the movie making industry towards rendering using physically based methods, mostly implemented in terms of path tracing. While path tracing reached most VFX houses and animation studios at a time when a physically based approach to rendering and especially material modelling was already firmly established, the new tools brought with them a whole new balance, and many new workflows have evolved to find a new equilibrium. Letting go of instincts based on hard-learned lessons from a previous time has been challenging for some, and many different takes on a practical deployment of the new technologies have emerged. While the language and toolkit available to the technical directors keep closing the gap between lighting in the real world and the light transport simulations ran in software, an understanding of the limitations of the simulation models and a good intuition of the trade-offs and approximations at play are of fundamental importance to make efficient use of the available resources. In this course, the novel workflows emerged during the transitions at a number of large facilities are presented to a wide audience including technical directors, artists, and researchers.

This is the second part of a two part course. While the first part focuses on background and implementation, the second one focuses on material acquisition and modeling, GPU rendering, and pipeline evolution.

References

  1. Brent Burley. 2012. Physically-based shading at Disney. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2012 Courses (SIGGRAPH '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Eric Heitz and Eugene d'Eon. 2014. Importance Sampling Microfacet-Based BSDFs using the Distribution of Visible Normals. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 33. 103--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Wojciech Matusik, Hanspeter Pfister, Matt Brand, and Leonard McMillan. 2003. A Data-Driven Reflectance Model. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July 2003), 759--769. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. PAB. 2018. pab advanced technologies Ltd. http://www.pab.eu. Accessed: 2018-01-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Matt Pharr and Wenzel Jakob. 2017. personal communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Szymon M Rusinkiewicz. 1998. A New Change of Variables for Efficient BRDF Representation. In Rendering Techniques '98. Springer, 11--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Laurent Bousquet, Sophie Lacherade, Stephane Jacquemoud, and Ismal Moya. 2005. Leaf BRDF measurements and model for specular and diffuse components differentiation. Remote Sensing of Environment 98 (10 2005), 201--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Didier Combes, Laurent Bousquet, Staphane Jacquemoud, Hervé Sinoquet, Claude Varlet-Grancher, and Ismal Moya. 2007. A new spectrogoniophotometer to measure leaf spectral and directional optical properties. Remote Sensing of Environment 109 (07 2007), 107--117.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Luca Fascione, Johannes Hanika, Mark Leone, Marc Droske, Jorge Schwarzhaupt, Tomas Davidovic, Andrea Weidlich, and Johannes Meng. 2018. Manuka: A Batch-Shading Architecture for Spectral Path Tracing in Movie Production. ACM Transactions on Graphics 37 (08 2018), 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Charles Han, Bo Sun, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Eitan Grinspun. 2007. Frequency Domain Normal Map Filtering. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3, Article 28 (July 2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Stéphane Jacquemoud and Baret Frederic. 1990. PROSPECT: a model of leaf optical properties spectra. Remote Sensing of Environment 34 (11 1990), 75--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Stéphane Jacquemoud, Wout Verhoef, Frédéric Baret, Cédric Bacour, Pablo J. Zarco-Tejada, Gregory P. Asner, Christophe Francois, and Susan L. Ustin. 2009. PROSPECT+SAIL models: A review of use for vegetation characterization. Remote Sensing of Environment 113 (2009), S56 -- S66. Imaging Spectroscopy Special Issue.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Wenzel Jakob, Miloš Hašan, Ling-Qi Yan, Jason Lawrence, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Steve Marschner. 2014. Discrete Stochastic Microfacet Models. ACM Trans. Graph. 33, 4, Article 115 (July 2014), 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Marc Olano and Dan Baker. 2010. LEAN Mapping. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games (I3D '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 181--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ling-Qi Yan, Miloš Hašan, Wenzel Jakob, Jason Lawrence, Steve Marschner, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. 2014. Rendering Glints on High-resolution Normal-mapped Specular Surfaces. ACM Trans. Graph. 33, 4, Article 116 (July 2014), 9 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. NVIDIA RTX product announcement in August 2018 https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/10-years-in-the-making-nvidia-brings-real-time-ray-tracing-to-gamers-with-geforce-rtxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. NVIDIA Turing Architecture Video and White Paper https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-visualization/technologies/turing-architecture/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ken Anjyo and Katsuaki Hiramitsu. 2003. Non-Photorealistic Rendering. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 23, 4 (2003), 54--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jan Eric Kyprianidis, Henry Kang, and Jürgen Döllner. 2009. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. Pacific Graphics) 28, 7 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGGRAPH '19: ACM SIGGRAPH 2019 Courses
    July 2019
    3772 pages
    ISBN:9781450363075
    DOI:10.1145/3305366

    Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 28 July 2019

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • course

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,822of8,601submissions,21%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader