←back to thread

Physically Based Rendering: From Theory to Implementation

(pbr-book.org)
218 points ahamez | 1 comments | 13 Jan 25 14:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
crispyambulance ◴[16 Jan 25 17:56 UTC] No.42728529[source]▶
Every time I see stuff like this it makes me think about optical design software.

There are applications (Zemax, for example) that are used to design optical systems (lens arrangements for cameras, etc). These applications are eye-wateringly expensive-- like similar in pricing to top-class EDA software licenses.

With the abundance GPU's and modern UI's, I wonder how much work would be involved for someone to make optical design software that blows away the old tools. It would be ray-tracing, but with interesting complications like accounting for polarization, diffraction, scattering, fluorescence, media effects beyond refraction like like birefringence and stuff like Kerr and Pockels, etc.

replies(10): >>42728932 #>>42728962 #>>42729610 #>>42730664 #>>42730756 #>>42731720 #>>42732069 #>>42733041 #>>42736387 #>>42739407 #
1. ska ◴[17 Jan 25 16:12 UTC] No.42739407[source]▶
This is one example of an area where economic incentives make it difficult to shift.

  - There aren't that many people willing to pay for such software, but those that do *really* need it, and will pay quite a bit (passing that cost on of course). 
 
  - The technical domain knowledge needed to do it properly is a barrier to many
 
  - It needs to be pretty robust
As a result, you end up with a small handful of players who provide it. They have little incentive to modernize, and the opportunity cost for a new player high enough to chase most of them off to other avenues.

I think the main way this changes is when someone has already spend the money in an adjacent area, and realized "huh, with a little effort here we could probably eat X's lunch"

Beyond that you at most get toy systems from enthusiasts and grad students (same group?) ...