Go to bottom

Voxels vs. Polygons vs. Raytracing comparison table.

category: gfx [glöplog]
Let's do it.

Reason? Fun, and opinion from people that actually know what they're talking about. Topic is real-time computer graphics; also usable in video games. So if I mean raytracing, I mean the theoretical video-games of 2020 raytracing, but as it is now. Also remember you're not trying to achieve a hugely photo realistic experience, you are trying to achieve pixel-perfect imagery and artificial lighting conditions that would allow to expand the possibilities of digital artists.

Here's how it goes. I say animation, you say table of voxels | polygons | raytracing in scale "extraordinary bad"; "very bad"; "bad"; "mediocre"; "N/A"; "good"; "very good"; "extraordinary good" and "depends"; "heavily depends".

Please provide proof or comment. But "good|bad|good" is enough. You can include any extra information you want. Like if something is very good in path tracing, extraordinary good in raymarching and extraordinary bad in "regular raytracing"(let's say POV-Ray) just include this info. Now but please keep it at these 3, the text is already hugely overpopulated with pathetic attempt at setting up some rules while 90% of you already turned around and forgot everything, now didn't you?

Let's start then,
I say translucent materials.

I would say bad | very good | extraordinary good.

Voxels: don't know of an implementation yet, but it must be costly in SW mode
Polygons: very good, but looks amateur without a good shader, and even that won't help in many cases
Raytracing: no contest there, doesn't even need good shaders to eliminate the weird look, especially remember the 2004-generation games? that was quite awful when you think about it
added on the 2011-10-17 20:01:39 by Dany0 Dany0
quite pointless :-/ and the examples you give are all wrong.
added on the 2011-10-17 20:14:16 by Navis Navis
Vote ghostbuster-abe!
BB Image
added on the 2011-10-17 20:17:52 by kusma kusma
All of the above.
added on the 2011-10-17 20:19:57 by Blueberry Blueberry
X marks the spot.
added on the 2011-10-17 23:21:58 by xernobyl xernobyl
I thought voxels were good for translucency.
added on the 2011-10-18 00:10:58 by Optimus Optimus
Really greasy hamburgers are great for translucency.

And fried chicken. Don't forget fried chicken.
Please stay on topic.

Let's try memory consumption.
added on the 2011-10-18 21:55:45 by Dany0 Dany0
I agree, let's stay on topic. What's best, <data-representation>, <data-representation> or <algorithm>.

Oh wait, I'm messing it up... The topic was Star Wars Taxidermy, no?
BB Image
BB Image
BB Image
added on the 2011-10-18 22:51:57 by kusma kusma
Ugh. Tauntaun smell.
added on the 2011-10-18 22:53:59 by Preacher Preacher
generally applicable answer to any upcoming use case:

You say *
I would say heavily depends | heavily depends | heavily depends
added on the 2011-10-18 23:09:28 by gopher gopher
The way I see it, one of the most important reasons why most rendering is still polygonal is in the content creation / storage methods.
added on the 2011-10-19 00:12:51 by Gargaj Gargaj
added on the 2011-10-19 01:07:27 by kusma kusma
BB Image

BB Image

BB Image

BB Image

BB Image

Interesting things on the internet these days
define interesting
added on the 2011-10-19 06:12:09 by shuffle2 shuffle2
what chuck testa said.
added on the 2011-10-19 09:42:09 by pro pro
I once drew some polygons where the pixel shader raytraced some voxels. I would characterize the result as "good".
added on the 2011-10-19 10:00:23 by Blueberry Blueberry
you are confusing things here. voxels and polygons are two ways to represent geometry. raytracing is a method to render images, whatever the geometry is voxel, polygon or implicit. polygons look as good as voxels or implicits when rendered with the same raytracer, or rasterizer for the matter.

if you what you wanted was to compare a rasterizer with a raytracer, yep, rasterizers have a harder time doing global illumination, and raytracers have a hard time doing motion blur and depth of field (performance-wise). so in the long run raytracing is better, but as it has been proved so many times already (and i look ro saarbruken, utah and many other particulars here), realtime raytracing is something for the future. eot?
added on the 2011-10-19 10:04:59 by iq iq
iq: I actually look at it slightly different: Raytracing is a very good reference when writing real-time stuff. Useful, high-end real-time (and not just interactive) raytracing without rasterizer-ish cheats is something I think is so far away that the sun has likely exploded before then. The thing is, the requirements for graphics fidelity is rising so fast, we actually need to cheat and fake MORE, not less ;)
added on the 2011-10-19 10:16:08 by kusma kusma
And just to point it out: that isn't to say that we won't start doing first the primary rays through ray-tracing. But don't expect path tracing, diffuse reflections or anything like that to ever become cheap enough that it's actually worth skipping all the fakes we currently do ;)
added on the 2011-10-19 10:21:36 by kusma kusma
argh, this started so well.. kusma, get back to topic!
added on the 2011-10-19 10:30:54 by 216 216
oh, sorry! more taxidermy!
BB Image
added on the 2011-10-19 14:25:22 by kusma kusma
OK iq I agree, I wasn't explicit enough. If you want to stay on the star wars thing-ie-ish thing topic, please, go on. BTW the picture of the cat is so freaky it's bad. Bad. Bad cat.
added on the 2011-10-19 16:49:17 by Dany0 Dany0
Let's do this, you were to render a set of specific scenes. You have to choose how to deliver it to the end-user. The end-user hardware will choose between ray-tracing and rasterization. So don't worry about that.

But you will have to choose between voxelized or polygonal assets. Because obviously you can't ship both of them on a tiny 700Eb storage (sweet corn that's a big number!).

You have a dead-line and a standard of shipping the best-looking 4d porn. Who was the phone? I mean what do you choose?

Mashed potatoes, I choose mashed potatoes... goodness why am I still trying?

Just say what's better. I'll put up a table. For wiki-pedo y'know. Everyone laugh because it's funny.


BB Image
added on the 2011-10-19 17:18:19 by Dany0 Dany0
BTW the picture of the cat is so freaky it's bad. Bad. Bad cat.

Here, let me fix it for you:

BB Image
added on the 2011-10-19 17:21:14 by すすれ すすれ


Go to top