Real-Time High Dynamic Range Image-Based Lighting

[Nick[FM]]

Dunno if this is OLD, or if this is new (or posted in the right board for that matter) but you guys with DX9.0 class hardware might be interested in this Real-Time High Dynamic Range Image-Based Lighting Demo.

Here are some shots from the demo:

http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/Image/22.jpg

http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/Image/06.jpg

I was personally very impressed with this!

*edit: Some more info:

What is rthdribl

Rthdribl is a "High Dynamic Range Image-Based Lighting" demo.
Technical features of the demo are:
- True HDR (High-Dynamic Range) Rendering
- IBL (Image-Based Lighting)
- Glare Generation (Afterimage, Bloom, Halo, Ghost, and Star)
- Automatic Exposure Adjustment
- Iris shaped Depth of Field blur
- Realistic Motion Blur
- FSAA (Full-Scene Anti-Alias)
- Fresnel Effect (Specular Reflectance)
etc.

Glare, Motion Blur, Fresnel Reflection and Depth of Field effects
work properly by rendering with HDR.

ps. Sorry if everything went wrong, but I'm in a bit of a hurry..

 

[MuFu]

Checking it out now, thanks.

MuFu.

 

[Brent]

Thanks Worm! Downloading now...

 

[MuFu]

Wow! Very impressive indeed - getting ~40fps@640x480 (97P@345/338MHz, XP 1.9GHz).

Definitely one of the best, if not *the* best lighting demo I've seen so far. 8)

MuFu.

 

[andypski]

Wow!

Fantastically good demo.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Would be interesting to see this running on GeForceFX on

1) "Performance 3DMark" driver (43.45)
2) "Non Special" driver. (43.0)

...since the dynamic range seems to be in question with the FX in the "performance" drivers.

I would expect that if the image quality on the FX is comparable to that which we see on the R300, performance will be about half of that of the R300.

If there is no performance / quality difference between the two driver sets, that may be an indication if the "performance driver" tweaks are 3DMark specific, or DX9 global.

 

[KimB]

If there is no performance / quality difference between the two driver sets, that may be an indication if the "performance driver" tweaks are 3DMark specific, or DX9 global.

That, or whether they just apply to PS 1.4.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That, or whether they just apply to PS 1.4.

AFAIK, the "sky" in GT4 of 3DMark is PS 2.0, and that's where the quality issues are.

 

[noko]

WOW! Impressive demo . I hope this is a glimpse of the future dealing with lighting. The blur effect is fantastic .

 

[Tahir2]

Seems that lighting is sorted in DX9.. truly impressive effects - damn near photorealistic (just the lighting).

Now what do we tackle next?

 

[Humus]

Well, the demo crashes for me at startup, so no cool lighting for me :/

The screenies looks pretty cool though, but these effects are fairly simple to implement. HDR and exposure are pretty straightforward. Glow effects are a matter of applying a blur filter and adding that on top. Depth of Field is a matter of applying a blur filter and adjust sampling kernel size according to distance from the fragment depth to the focal plane.

 

[noko]

You make it sound so easy . I've havn't a clue .

 

[Ostsol]

It hard-locks my system when I try to run it.

 

[vrecan]

works great for me except with the new cat 3.2's it has a small visual artifact like a black line in a circular pattern on the objects only at certain angles and depths

 

[Chris]

Same problems here.

I get a window, a couple of rendered frames & then a hard freeze (sometimes with the desktop intact). Maybe we can compare some notes and determine a common system attribute that causes the problem.

Regards, Chris.

My system:

Abit NF7-S (Nforce)
XP SP1
DX9a
Radeon 9700 np
512 ram
Barton 2800+
SB Audigy
Pixelview TV capture card
Dual Monitors

So far I have tried:

Disabling the second monitor
Clocking Video and CPU back to factory defaults
Re-installing Sound, Video hardware and drivers
Moving cards on the PCI bus to eliminate video interrupt sharing
Disabling sound hardware (both Nforce and Audigy)
Disabling TV capture card


System Data Follows:

AMD Athlon(tm) 2.1 GHz
External Clock 170.0 MHz
Socket Designation Slot A
Caches
Level 1 128 KB
Level 2 512 KB



DirectX Info
Version 9.0
Long Version 4.09.00.0901


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DirectDraw
Version 5.3.0000000.900
Primary Device RADEON 9700 PRO

Display Device 1/2
RADEON 9700 PRO Driver 6.14.1.6307

Description RADEON 9700 PRO
Manufacturer ATI Technologies Inc.
Total Local Video Memory 128 MB
Total Local Texture Memory 128 MB
Total AGP Memory 0 B
Driver Version 6.14.1.6307
Driver Details 7.84-030228a1-008040C-ATI
VGA Memory Clock 279.0 MHz
VGA Core Clock 346.5 MHz
PCI
Name RADEON 9700 PRO
Vendor ID 0x1002
Device ID 0x4e44
SubSystem ID 0x00021002
Revision ID 0x00

DirectShow
Version 9.0
Long Version 4.09.00.0901

DirectSound
Version 5.3.0000000.900

Sound Device 1/2
NVIDIA(R) nForce(TM) Audio Driver 5.10.2917.0

Sound Device 2/2
Creative Audigy Audio Processor (WDM) Driver 5.12.1.253


Memory Info
Total Physical Memory 512 MB
Free Physical Memory 312 MB
Total Pagefile Memory 1.22 GB
Free Pagefile Memory 1.07 GB


Motherboard Info
Model NF7-S/NF7-M/NF7 (nVidia-nForce2)
BIOS Vendor Phoenix Technologies, LTD
BIOS Version 6.00 PG
BIOS Release Date 02/27/2003
BIOS Properties Plug and Play, Flash, AGP
AGP
Revision 3.0
Rate 4x (4x enabled)
Available Rate 0x00000004
Selected Rate 0x00000004
Aperture Size 0 B
Sideband Addressing supported (disabled)
Fast Write not supported

 

[McElvis]

Someone on nvnews.net has tried it out on a FX Ultra, and has posted some screen shots.

I'm not sure how powerful his machine is, but he gets about 5 to 6 fps. The lighting looks a little odd compared with the screen shots linked to in the first post of this thread. Also all the text is blured.

Is this the same on a 9700?

I'm not sure what drivers he was using, but I think it was 43.45, as he was talking about these in another thread over there.

Link http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=9859804f3deac6de8e404682edff9715&threadid=9641

 

[LeStoffer]

Someone on nvnews.net has tried it out on a FX Ultra, and has posted some screen shots.

I'm not sure how powerful his machine is, but he gets about 5 to 6 fps. The lighting looks a little odd compared with the screen shots linked to in the first post of this thread. Also all the text is blured.

Is this the same on a 9700?

Note that he is running it at 1024x768. I just tried it at the same resolution and is getting 14 - 16 FPS with a Radeon 9700 Pro. Apparently we are not using the same texture format: I'm using the recommended A16B16G16R16F, while he is just using E8R8G8B8 - so that could well acount for the lightning differences. (I have the same blur BTW).

All in all I would guess that the programmer have made this on a R300.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Is that texture format an input format or output (i.e. render to)?

 

[LeStoffer]

Is that texture format an input format or output (i.e. render to)?

The programs readme states:

Additionary, D3DFMT_A16B16G16R16F and D3DFMT_A16B16G16R16 texture formats that can be rendered are highly recommended

As I understand that these format are input used for texture address instructions. According to the DX9 specs:

D3DFMT_A8R8G8B8 = 32-bit ARGB pixel format (with alpha, using 8 bits per channel).

D3DFMT_A16B16G16R16 = 64-bit pixel format using 16 bits for each component.

D3DFMT_A16B16G16R16F = 64-bit float format using 16 bits for the each channel (alpha, blue, green, red).

 

[Neeyik]

Actually it says "1024 x 702" on those screen shots - does anybody else get that? I don't have DX9 hardware, so I can't try it out myself but the DX8 version doesn't do that.