Smoother Diffuse Shading in Development

Published by Kernon on January 2nd, 2008 in 3D News, Development

When using multiple lamps, it is often evident that the light boundaries give a banding effect. Using Cubic correction of the diffuse values, the light boundaries are blended, providing significantly improved results.

Regular Diffuse:

Using "Cubic" option:

For more details, go here.

Related posts are selected automatically based on their content.

16 Responses to “Smoother Diffuse Shading in Development”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Felix_Kütt Jan 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 am

\o/ that be a great addition to the shading options!
2 mookie Jan 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am

Will it work with every diffuse shader?
3 andy Jan 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am

mookie: yes.
it significantly changes the look of some shaders, though. and it's obviously not physically accurate. that's also the reason why this isnt the default setting for all new materials.

.andy
4 Ben Jan 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 am

It's already in the SVN, or at least this Windows build here: http://www.graphicall.org/builds/builds/showbuild.php?action=show&id=560
Looks to be a good option to have as that banding has bugged me before.
5 AniCator Jan 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I always wondered why Regular Diffuse had those sharpened light fades. Is that what it's called?
6 qwequ777 Jan 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

very nice new feature :)
apparently someone read my posting that I'd be interested in news concerning the developement^^
thanks
7 panzi Jan 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Compiling from SVN… :)
8 PapaSmurf Jan 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm

Yea! When I was making all the lighting rigs examples for the wiki, I saw that banding and spent a lot of time tinkering to try to get it removed by using different fill lights. While I was eventually successful, this option will save time. Thanks!
9 Tynach Jan 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm

But if it is not physically accurate, then why is it desirable?
10 andy Jan 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm

because physical accuracy doesnt always lead to the best results :)
11 Nico Jan 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm

I'm not trying to be picky here - but the 'best result' usually derives from physical accuracy, doesn't it? The way I understand it it's not physically accurate on the 1-lamp-1-object-level but still gives a more accurate impression as in reality the light bounces are far more complex than what can be achieved with a classic 3-point-lighting (for example). Is that true? I think Tynach's question is valid.
12 Lee Jan 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Hmm. I think well blended shading is much more physically realistic than color bands that appear from nowhere. I'd like to see this being the default, unless it's honestly worse than those bands (which I've seen many times before giving up and using yafray).
13 CGuy Jan 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Nico,
physically accurate is very processor intensive. short of rendering in indigo, or some other physical based renderer, everything you make in blender is at best an approximation. this is just another approximation that looks good for somethings, without increasing rendertimes extraordinarily. not to mention, it isn't always part of the style to be photoreal. alot of stuff is cartoon, where a band is extremely distracting.
14 Tynach Jan 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Heh. Trouble is, I see those "bands" in real life, and, after testing the feature myself for a few minutes, always came to the conclusion that the "bands" look more realistic than the cubic softening.

Sorry, but although this is OK for lighting a model, it is NOT ok for using for a final render, at least for trying to achieve photo realism.

By the way, I have gripes about 3-point lighting anyways. I don't use it. In fact, I try to stay away from it.
15 DramaKing Jan 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm

I never really noticed that effect before. I can, however, tell the difference between the two quite easily.
16 Shaw Jan 3rd, 2008 at 3:59 am

Just a quick question: are these renders linear or gamma correct? That could have a significant impact on how the final gradient looks.