Skip to main content

A better depth buffer for raymarching

When doing any type of raymarching over a depth buffer, it is very easy to determine if there is no occluder – the depth in the buffer is farther away than the current point on the ray. However, when the depth in the buffer is closer you might be occluded or you might not, depending on a) the thickness of the occluder and b) if there are any other occluders behind the first one and their thickness. It seems most people assume a) is either infinite or a constant value and b) is ignored alltogether.

Since my new renderer is entirely based around screen space raymarching I wanted to improve on this to make it more accurate. This has been done before, but mostly in the context of order independent transparency (I think).

Let's look at a scene where the occluders are assumed to have infinite depth (I have tweaked the lighting for more distinct shadows to get a better look at raymarching artefacts, so the lighting does not exactly match the environment in these screenshot).


At a first glance it may look okay, but at certain angles, it is very evident that something is off:


Even an object that is visibly thin will receive a shadow as if infinitely thick. The go-to trick in this situation is to hardcode a thickness and tweak until it looks acceptable:


Still artefacts, but much better. However, for most scenes it's just not possible to find one single thickness that works for everything. What we ideally want is the actual object thickness per pixel. One relatively cheap way of approximating depth is to render a depth buffer for back faces. As long as objects don't overlap, are closed and reasonably convex, the difference between front face depth and back face depth is actually a pretty accurate representation of the object thickness.


I store front face and back face depth in different channels of the same texture, so I just retrieve RG instead of R for each pixel and compare the depth to both values when raymarching, making it really cheap. This removes a lot of artefacts, but there is still room for improvement.

It is hard to visualize in a still image, but with a moving camera it becomes very clear that shadows are only visible for the first layer of objects. As soon as an object disappears behind something, its shadow is also gone. This is of course particularly evident with long shadows from, say, a sunset.

Creating another layer of depth information is called depth peeling and there are several ways to do it. I use the stencil buffer, but it can also be done by discarding fragments in a shader. I already mentioned that I store front and back face depth in two different channels of the same texture, so why not add another layer of front and back face depth and make it a full, four channel texture? All four depth values (first front, first back, second front, second back) can still be fetched as a single texture read, making it really fast.

One could imagine doing even more depth layers, but the visual improvement would be hard to notice.

Comments

  1. Thanks - this is educating.
    So you have custom shaders to render depth? Or is it possible to do what you described (I mean a second layer of depths specifically) with depth buffering settings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's probably smarter to do it with depth, but I' actually using the stencil buffer. I depth sort objects front to back and draw them with glStencilFunc(GL_EQUAL, 1, 1); glStencilOp(GL_REPLACE, GL_KEEP, GL_KEEP); This will draw the second layer depth peel only.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bokeh depth of field in a single pass

When I implemented bokeh depth of field I stumbled upon a neat blending trick almost by accident. In my opinion, the quality of depth of field is more related to how objects of different depths blend together, rather than the blur itself. Sure, bokeh is nicer than gaussian, but if the blending is off the whole thing falls flat. There seems to be many different approaches to this out there, most of them requiring multiple passes and sometimes separation of what's behind and in front of the focal plane. I experimented a bit and stumbled upon a nice trick, almost by accident.

I'm not going to get into technical details about lenses, circle of confusion, etc. It has been described very well many times before, so I'm just going to assume you know the basics. I can try to summarize what we want to do in one sentence – render each pixel as a discs where the radius is determined by how out of focus it is, also taking depth into consideration "somehow".

Taking depth into…

Screen Space Path Tracing – Diffuse

The last few posts has been about my new screen space renderer. Apart from a few details I haven't really described how it works, so here we go. I split up the entire pipeline into diffuse and specular light. This post will focusing on diffuse light, which is the hard part.

My method is very similar to SSAO, but instead of doing a number of samples on the hemisphere at a fixed distance, I raymarch every sample against the depth buffer. Note that the depth buffer is not a regular, single value depth buffer, but each pixel contains front and back face depth for the first and second layer of geometry, as described in this post.

The increment for each step is not view dependant, but fixed in world space, otherwise shadows would move with the camera. I start with a small step and then increase the step exponentially until I reach a maximum distance, at which the ray is considered a miss. Needless to say, raymarching multiple samples for every pixel is very costly, and this is without …

Stratified sampling

After finishing my framework overhaul I'm now back on hybrid rendering and screen space raytracing. My first plan was to just port the old renderer to the new framework but I ended up rewriting all of it instead, finally trying out a few things that has been on my mind for a while.

I've been wanting to try stratified sampling for a long time as a way to reduce noise in the diffuse light. The idea is to sample the hemisphere within a certain set of fixed strata instead of completely random to give a more uniform distribution. The direction within each stratum is still random, so it would still cover the whole hemisphere and converge to the same result, just in a slightly more predictable way. I won't go into more detail, but full explanation is all over the Internet, for instance here.

Let's look at the difference between stratified and uniform sampling. To make a fair comparison there is no lighting in these images, just ambient occlusion and an emissive object.


They …