I have used PBR in landscaping, and hated it

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

You remind me of one of my Guru's talks in which he explains "there's no such thing as Red".

Indeed there is not. "Orange" wasn't a colour until the 16th century: it literally didn't "exist" as a distinctly individual tone.

[Luna Bliss]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That's PBR and all the graphical bells and whistles. It's producing a "look," an aesthetic and visual convention of what we "think" real would look like in a 3D context.

So are you saying you actually like this new ability we have. Since you've only ever trashed PBR I"m confused now.

*The person you quoted is trashing it, further confusing me as to the intent of your post.

Edited July 13 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

You remind me of one of my Guru's talks in which he explains "there's no such thing as Red".

Indeed there is not. "Orange" wasn't a colour until the 16th century: it literally didn't "exist" as a distinctly individual tone.

Theatrical lighting is EVERYTHING, as shown in this classic example of "practical effects" using lighting and colors (using color filters with Black&White photography).

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

A shadow operates the same in RL or a virtual world.

They don't actually; take it from someone who has spent a LOT of time playing with shadows for SL pics. It uses advanced mathematics to simulate closely the same effects.

The same is actually true of linear perspective in Second Life, which does not work in quite the same way that it does through our eyes in RL; the code uses mathematics to produce a believable simulation.

And the same is also true of 2D painting and drawing: linear perspective visual art uses tricks and conventions to produce the illusion of depth, but it's seldom an accurate replication of real depth as we perceive it in the world.

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

We can of course tweak the lighting in all sorts of ways, much as how you do with your photo art. I've done that with some rocks...used the light to make them look a bit strange, even more shiny in an odd kind of way...deliberately, because I like surrealism.  Making anything look a bit odd causes the audience to notice it more.

I'm not even sure I'm making it look odd...perhaps that's just how I see it in my mind's eye if I choose to, and then reproduce it.

This is a somewhat different effect than I'm talking about, but one that is certainly legit.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

So are you saying you actually like this new ability we have. Since you've only ever trashed PBR I"m confused now.

*The person you quoted is trashing it, further confusing me as to the intent of your post.

I'm neither trashing nor praising it. I'm arguing that it is producing a conventionalized, rather than scientifically "real," version of the way in which light plays on material bodies. The idea is that it reproduces the mechanics of real life, but that's a literal impossibility as it is literally not "light," nor are we seeing an "actual" reflection.

It can look very good, and very pleasing, regardless of how "real" it is -- just as an SL photo -- or an RL watercolour painting -- can look good and pleasing through their employment of conventions that we have come to recognize.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just to make the relevance of this a bit clearer.

If we're judging the success, failure, or value of PBR by assessing how "real" it makes things look, we are, in some sense, asking the wrong question. Put a straight-up, unprocessed picture taken in SL at Ultra graphics settings and PBR next to one taken in RL, similarly without processing, and at least 95% of time we'll immediately know which is SL.

But that doesn't necessarily make the SL picture less pleasing, if it looks like a really good 3D rendering that follows the conventions we've come to accept from computer games and CGI.

"Bad looking" landscape fails not because it doesn't look like real landscape: it is, with current technology, impossible that it should. It fails because it doesn't look how we've been trained to think "good looking" computer graphics look.

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm arguing that it is producing a conventionalized, rather than scientifically "real," version of the way in which light plays on material bodies. The idea is that it reproduces the mechanics of real life, but that's a literal impossibility as it is literally not "light," nor are we seeing an "actual" reflection.

I thought that PBR was merely a "better" convention of representing "real" lighting, etc. via computer graphics applications, than the very old methods used by Second Life previous to PBR. (I did not remember anyone saying PBR literally claimed to "reproduce" anything like "real life" lighting, etc.)

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I thought that PBR was merely a "better" convention of representing "real" lighting, etc. via computer graphics applications, than the very old methods used by Second Life previous to PBR. (I did not remember anyone saying PBR literally claimed to "reproduce" anything like "real life" lighting, etc.)

In practice of course you're right, but it's more "realistic" in the sense that the surfaces of PBR objects are more sensitive and reactive to "light." The qualities of the object itself (except of course, not really: these are a function of artificially purpose designed material maps) are what produces the particular pattern or look of the reflections and shininess. In BP, shine is more generic and less anchored in the object.

Edited July 13 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I thought that PBR was merely a "better" convention of representing "real" lighting, etc. via computer graphics applications, than the very old methods used by Second Life previous to PBR. (I did not remember anyone saying PBR literally claimed to "reproduce" anything like "real life" lighting, etc.)

In practice of course you're right, but it's more "realistic" in the sense that the surfaces of PBR objects are more sensitive and reactive to "light." The qualities of the object itself (except of course, not really: these are a function of artificially purpose designed material maps) are what produces the particular pattern or look of the reflections and shininess. In BP, shine is more generic and less anchored in the object.

I apologize, but my point was, on the surface it appeared your objection was that "someone" was claiming PBR was supposed to be realistic (but it is not, obviously, based on a huge number of factors - not just the lighting, but the object yourself as you say above). I just didn't see anyone making that claim.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I apologize, but my point was, on the surface it appeared your objection was that "someone" was claiming PBR was supposed to be realistic (but it is not, obviously, based on a huge number of factors - not just the lighting, but the object yourself as you say above). I just didn't see anyone making that claim.

Take a look at the LL wiki page on PBR. That is actually sort of what it says.

"The term itself is an abbreviation for a collection of complex mathematical algorithms that attempt to accurately represent the ways that light reflects off and interacts with objects in the real world. In the real world, it is the behavior of light on a piece of metal that allows us, the observer, to recognize “that object is made of metal” without actually reaching out and touching it. The way a metal reflects light differs from that of a polished plastic or some other material, and these differences have been quantified by science. By mimicking real-world physics principles in the virtual world it allows for the creation of more immersive recognizable realistic spaces, but also it helps us relate to fantastical worlds a little better too. While we may not be familiar with what a newly imagined creation is, a metal's inherent metal-ness and aged wood's inherent wood-ness remain constant, making it easier to intuitively understand what we are interacting with in a virtual environment."

Edited July 13 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Take a look at the LL wiki page on PBR. That is actually sort of what it says.

"The term itself is an abbreviation for a collection of complex mathematical algorithms that attempt to accurately represent the ways that light reflects off and interacts with objects in the real world. In the real world, it is the behavior of light on a piece of metal that allows us, the observer, to recognize “that object is made of metal” without actually reaching out and touching it. The way a metal reflects light differs from that of a polished plastic or some other material, and these differences have been quantified by science. By mimicking real-world physics principles in the virtual world it allows for the creation of more immersive recognizable realistic spaces, but also it helps us relate to fantastical worlds a little better too. While we may not be familiar with what a newly imagined creation is, a metal's inherent metal-ness and aged wood's inherent wood-ness remain constant, making it easier to intuitively understand what we are interacting with in a virtual environment."

My opinion: "Mimicking" isn't a terribly strong word (although it has implications), and "more immersive" doesn't make a very big promise.

Good info, thanks!

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

My opinion: "Mimicking" isn't a terribly strong word (although it has implications)

Well, they can't use the word "simulate" a PBR doesn't do that, not even REAL PBRR, done properly by professionals, on other platforms.

 

"Simulating" optical physics, CAN be done, but basically it's software based, not hardware based, and we're talking Minutes-Per-Frame, or even Hours-Per-Frame, rather than Frames-Per-Second.

THAT is why PBR is short for "physically based rendering" and NOT "PHYSICS based rendering", as it does NOT simulate "real world lighting and shadows".

 

It's basically a quick and dirty way to FAKKE the effects of software raytraced shadows and reflections, without actually doing raytracing, using a GPU.

And even than, it NEEDS the other half of the system, the PBR lighting, which SL does NOT have, as LL didn't bother doing that bit yet, so basically, every thing Luna's been saying about it's "realism" is nonsense.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Take a look at the LL wiki page on PBR. That is actually sort of what it says.

"The term itself is an abbreviation for a collection of complex mathematical algorithms that attempt to accurately represent the ways that light reflects off and interacts with objects in the real world. In the real world, it is the behavior of light on a piece of metal that allows us, the observer, to recognize “that object is made of metal” without actually reaching out and touching it. The way a metal reflects light differs from that of a polished plastic or some other material, and these differences have been quantified by science. By mimicking real-world physics principles in the virtual world it allows for the creation of more immersive recognizable realistic spaces, but also it helps us relate to fantastical worlds a little better too. While we may not be familiar with what a newly imagined creation is, a metal's inherent metal-ness and aged wood's inherent wood-ness remain constant, making it easier to intuitively understand what we are interacting with in a virtual environment."

im glad for PBR now because when i see something, I’ll know its metal without having to touch it, because metal sure does get hot under the noon sun

Just imagine sitting on a bench, thinking it was wood, and it was actually metal…. ouch 😬

Edited July 13 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Scylla Rhiadra]

43 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

im glad for PBR now because when i see something, I’ll know its metal without having to touch it, because metal sure does get hot under the noon sun

Just imagine sitting on a bench, thinking it was wood, and it was actually metal…. ouch 😬

Yeah, I snorted -- quietly and in a ladylike fashion of course -- a little when I read that too, because . . . that applies to BP materials also. The difference lies, essentially, in where the information about light and texture is encoded, with the implication that making those a function of the qualities (i.e., materials) of the object is more "realistic."

Visual artists learned a long time ago that a "realistic" look -- sunshine that gleams and blinds, cool compositions that make you almost "feel" cool looking at them -- isn't actually produced by mimicking reality as closely as possible. It's a function of the tools of art, designed with the human eye in mind. Georges Seurat's "Bathers At Asnieres" is an example of painting that can make one feel one is sitting in the sun by a river, and it does so by abandoning any attempt to faithfully "mimic" the real operations of sunlight in that natural context.

 

[Cube Republic]

13 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Orange" wasn't a colour until the 16th century:

LOL what are you talking about?

The word 'orange' didn't enter the English language until 1502, but it was still a colour before then. It was called yellowy-red or whatever. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Cube Republic said:

LOL what are you talking about?

The word 'orange' didn't enter the English language until 1502, but it was still a colour before then. It was called yellowy-red or whatever. 

That is the point, Cube. Yes it could be seen, but it wasn't categorized as a distinct and individual colour.

The cosmos is full of things we don't have words for, haven't categorized, or don't even know about yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does mean that they haven't been incorporated yet into the human way of seeing and understanding the world.

[Holluschickie]

Trying to keep it plain and straightforward, and without anger and emotions. Everyone I talked to in Second Life agree on the same points as to the lighting model. Human eyes seem to work similarly, and different hardware qualities don't make a big difference.

Somebody changed a working system for an experiment that keeps failing to prove its right to exist in the first place. We get the idea: Shadows and reflections are supposed to interact to the movement of an object and not stay static and painted on. But neither is that necessary, nor does it work without destroying the former visual quality: Bad trade off.

My PBR diary (after the last viewer update):

- The first time I enter SL noticing something's really messed up

- Everything's fullbright

- I'm lagging and freezing

- I have to switch graphics to "Amiga quality" in order to be able to move like I used to

- Checking out the magic gimmicks this all was set up for offers a big surprise:

- They don't look better than the traditional, painted textures; they actually look ridiculous

- Blue, foreign objects that behave like paper cut outs

- They can gain quality on ultra settings, but still fail, compared to a "simple", detailed diffuse map

- Unfortunately, I can't use ultra settings with all the lag that lighting model causes

- Chats are getting jammed with people crying their eyes out

- Now, many users will have to "gear up" on hardware

And again: Bad trade off

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

On 7/13/2024 at 6:13 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That is the point, Cube. Yes it could be seen, but it wasn't categorized as a distinct and individual colour.

The cosmos is full of things we don't have words for, haven't categorized, or don't even know about yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does mean that they haven't been incorporated yet into the human way of seeing and understanding the world.

The other day the building management was cleaning my apartment building lobby. When I opened my door I picked up a very distinctive scent. Because I am a cheap person, I immediately knew what it was. "It smells like Fabuloso."

Now, if someone who didn't use that particular cleaner smelled the same smell, they'd not assign that name to it, but they'd definitely notice it (through six feet of concrete - it's not subtle) and be able to remember it. It might be "Hallway Smell" in their mind. But it would most assuredly "exist" for them just as it does for me.

[Luna Bliss]

11 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

It might be "Hallway Smell" in their mind. But it would most assuredly "exist" for them just as it does for me.

Yes, it would exist for them even they didn't know the official name for that smell. And yes, to ruin a Shakespeare saying, a foul smelling chemical by any name still smells as foul.

But to Scylla's point, having a common word makes it easy to discuss what something is, and this is an important part of the "human way of seeing and understanding the world".

Words actually cause us to see things we wouldn't ordinarily see without their guidance.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

52 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes, it would exist for them even they didn't know the official name for that smell. And yes, to ruin a Shakespeare saying, a foul smelling chemical by any name still smells as foul.

But to Scylla's point, having a common word makes it easy to discuss what something is, and this is an important part of the "human way of seeing and understanding the world".

Words actually cause us to see things we wouldn't ordinarily see without their guidance.

Yes, humans love to label things!  They also sometimes like to generalise and assign labels to things to which those labels may not apply. Fortunately humans are capable of learning so as they develop a better, more nuanced understanding of the world around them they invent new, more accurately representative labels with which to define things.

It's not the existence of things that inform our use of words to describe them, merely our awareness of their existence and a necessity to clarify our reference to them specifically. 

[Luna Bliss]

39 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, humans love to label things!  They also sometimes like to generalise and assign labels to things to which those labels may not apply. Fortunately humans are capable of learning so as they develop a better, more nuanced understanding of the world around them they invent new, more accurately representative labels with which to define things.

So true!  As useful as naming objects and experiences can be to facilitate greater awareness the flip side is they can certainly get us into trouble.

[JacksonBollock]

On 7/13/2024 at 11:13 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That is the point, Cube. Yes it could be seen, but it wasn't categorized as a distinct and individual colour.

The cosmos is full of things we don't have words for, haven't categorized, or don't even know about yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does mean that they haven't been incorporated yet into the human way of seeing and understanding the world.

Yep , to be honest the only reason the word 'orange' starts with an 'o' was to fit the mnemonic 'Richard of York gave battle in vain' .

If the mnemonic had been 'Richard and York gave battle in vain' , we'd be eating delicious juicy aranges for our daily dose of vitamin C.

True story. 🙂

Edited July 18 by JacksonBollock

[Nagachief Darkstone]

8 hours ago, Holluschickie said:

Trying to keep it plain and straightforward, and without anger and emotions. Everyone I talked to in Second Life agree on the same points as to the lighting model. Human eyes seem to work similarly, and different hardware qualities don't make a big difference.

Somebody changed a working system for an experiment that keeps failing to prove its right to exist in the first place. We get the idea: Shadows and reflections are supposed to interact to the movement of an object and not stay static and painted on. But neither is that necessary, nor does it work without destroying the former visual quality: Bad trade off.

My PBR diary (after the last viewer update):

- The first time I enter SL noticing something's really messed up

- Everything's fullbright

- I'm lagging and freezing

- I have to switch graphics to "Amiga quality" in order to be able to move like I used to

- Checking out the magic gimmicks this all was set up for offers a big surprise:

- They don't look better than the traditional, painted textures; they actually look ridiculous

- Blue, foreign objects that behave like paper cut outs

- They can gain quality on ultra settings, but still fail, compared to a "simple", detailed diffuse map

- Unfortunately, I can't use ultra settings with all the lag that lighting model causes

- Chats are getting jammed with people crying their eyes out

- Now, many users will have to "gear up" on hardware

And again: Bad trade off

 

This is probably the worst case scenario for trying to preview PBR content as PBR content will take in far more of the surrounding scene's data into account than specgloss objects, especially when said object has baked in specular and shading. The skybox is currently the only HDR source so it will blow things out a lot if that's your only source of information.

Here's a comparison between Alchemy (PBR) and Firestorm 6.6.17 of my home scene with a PBR environment, manual probes, and varied PBR materials and the older specgloss materials I made or had still on the objects.

Alchemy (PBR)

Firestorm 6.6.17 (SpecGloss)

[Cube Republic]

On 7/13/2024 at 7:13 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That is the point, Cube. Yes it could be seen, but it wasn't categorized as a distinct and individual colour.

The cosmos is full of things we don't have words for, haven't categorized, or don't even know about yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does mean that they haven't been incorporated yet into the human way of seeing and understanding the world.

I'm sorry again what are you even talking about?

Yes it could be seen, yes it was categorised, like seriously - 'it was called yellowy red' or 'saffron'  it was/is a destinct a individual colour that exists at 585 - 620 nanometers. 

 

[JacksonBollock]

50 minutes ago, Cube Republic said:

I'm sorry again what are you even talking about?

Yes it could be seen, yes it was categorised, like seriously - 'it was called yellowy red' or 'saffron'  it was/is a destinct a individual colour that exists at 585 - 620 nanometers. 

 

Ok, so my earlier attempt at comedy was actually a poor attempt at inroducing the idea of linguisitic determinism vs linguistic relativity.

To be fair it's all moot at this point and you can "debate" for ages, sadly though for @Scylla Rhiadra , the lingusitic relativism perspective is the more widely accepted perspective among linguists and cognitive scientists.

As I say no rights or wrongs in this though, but really interesting stuff to think about - for the likes of me that is, maybe not for 'normal' people.  

(This is my idea about what you're discussing and your different positions - if it's completely wrong, please forgive me for intruding 🙏)

Edited July 18 by JacksonBollock
apologies