<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
- <?dbhtml filename="Tutorial 0
+ <?dbhtml filename="Tutorial 0.html" ?>
<para>The diffuse lighting model works reasonably well for a smooth, matte surface. Few objects
in reality conform to this archetype. Therefore, in order to more accurately model real
<para>Note that these models do not throw away diffuse lighting. They all act as supplements,
adding their contribution into the overall result for the lighting equation.</para>
+ <?dbhtml filename="Tut10 Microfacets.html" ?>
<para>All of these specular reflection models work based on an assumption about the
characteristics of the surface. If a surface was perfectly smooth, then the specular
different mode of light/surface interaction from diffuse reflection.</para>
+ <?dbhtml filename="Tut10 Phong Model.html" ?>
<para>The simplest model of specular illumination is the <glossterm>Phong model</glossterm>.
The distribution of microfacets is not determined by a real statistical distribution.
+ <?dbhtml filename="Tut10 BlinnPhong Model.html" ?>
<para>The problem with Phong, with regard to the reflection and view directions being
greater than 90 degrees, can be solved by changing the computation. This modified model
and Phong can and cannot achieve.</para>
+ <?dbhtml filename="Tut10 Gaussian.html" ?>
<para>Phong and Blinn are nice toy heuristics that take relatively little computational
power. But if you're truly serious about computing specular highlights, you need a model
+ <?dbhtml filename="Tut10 On Performance.html" ?>
<para>The three specular highlight models seen here are obviously more computationally
expensive than diffuse lighting. But which is ultimately more expensive than the