How could raytracing algorithms be generalized to higher dimensions, "surface tracing" or "volume tracing"? For instance, instead of computing ray-surface intersection, what if we wanted surface-volume intersections?
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @LucasVB
As far as I know, you just solve the equation. e.g. which points satisfy the equation for the line and the sphere. For a 1 d line intersecting a 2d surface, the result is generically a point. But for higher dimensions it could be anything. What would that mean in terms of pixels?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @vi_ne_te
It's fundamentally just a geometric intersection algorithm. The goal here would not be rendering, but finding points in a surface or volume (as opposed to a ray) that intersect an object. Intersections are more complex and need to be "walked over", but that's my question.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @LucasVB
If you define your objects implicitly (e.g. x^2+y^2=1), then finding intersections is trivial. Can you elaborate on the question in case I’m not getting it?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @vi_ne_te
Suppose you have a function 𝑓: ℝⁿ ↦ ℝ. Then define a level hypersurface 𝑓(𝒓) = c. Say I want to adaptively approximate points of that surface in ℝⁿ up to a certain precision. Except the points aren't constrained to rays, but some pre-defined surface or volume element.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
For concreteness let’s assume we’re intersecting with a plane. I would start with a random point on the plane and evaluate f, if the value is c then you add the point to your collection. It it isn’t, calculate the derivatives and do gradient descent.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.