You can now download 440.5 out of the 676 figures in the fourth edition. Go get them here. (the 0.5 is because there are five figures where we include only half the figure, because the other half was from someone else.)
There are also now links on the home resources page of figures where we took a snapshot from a live demo that runs in a browser. For example, the three listed here are a fun place to start.
We’ll be signing books at the ACM bookstore on Tuesday, August 14, from 12:30 to 1 PM. All six of us should be able to make it, and with any luck there will be books, too (go, printers, go!). Even if not, we have a back-up plan… Oh, and do note it’s the bookstore, which is usually tucked away somewhere and is not on the exhibit hall floor.
Anyway, we hope to see you there!
Here’s an update to my previous blog post, on the volatility of web links.
The Twitter post has a bunch of responses, with some useful tidbits in there. Some resources mentioned: HTML5 UP! for free CC templates; gamedev.net has been around for almost 20 years and can act as an archive, gamedevs.org keeps some old presentations around. Go three paragraphs down for some web hosting suggestions. The idea of using the archive.org link as the “real” link is clever (and a bit sad), but assumes archive.org will always be around. Note that publishers such as the ACM allow you to put your published articles up on your homepage, your institution’s website, and on non-commercial repositories. I’m not sure how entities such as ResearchGate (where I’ve seen a number of papers stored) fit into this picture – they appear to be for-profit, e.g., they sell advertising, so I don’t think they fall into any of the ACM’s categories. I appreciate their efforts, but am concerned that papers there may go away because ResearchGate hasn’t been challenged by the ACM or others. Again, long-term durability is a question.
Also see the comments after the original post. My comment on “The sooner these are displaced by open publications like the JCGT, the better” is that, in graphics, there are no other free (to both readers and authors) journals, at least none that I know about. arXiv maybe qualifies. Looking there today, this article seemed like a handy summary, pointing to some resources I hadn’t known of before. But, trying to go to a site they mention in their article, Chrome warns, “Attackers might be trying to steal your information from dgtal.org” – OK, never mind. There might be great stuff at arXiv, but it seems like a firehose (10 articles published in graphics in the last week), without serious peer review. Editorial filtering and peer review is worth a lot. I guess you might be able to use a strategy of putting your preprint at arXiv, sort of like ResearchGate but less questionable (arXiv is run by Cornell). This approach is underutilized within graphics, AFAIK: only 2 papers on our refs page are available this way, vs. 25 for ResearchGate. If someone wants to explain what I’m missing here, great! Update: the ACM now permits authors to put preprints on ArXiv.
Thanks to you all for the followups, and I find my thoughts about the same: corporations come and go, more quickly than we expect. While I have a lot of faith in various institutions, ultimately I think the entity that best looks out for my interests is me. Having my own domain and website is good insurance against the vagaries from change of job status, change of corporate services (or existence), and change of webmaster. Me, I’m a cheapskate: http://erichaines.com is just a subdomain of realtimerendering.com, of which I’m the prime webmaster; we also host a number of other groups as subdomains, such as the Advances in Real-Time Rendering course notes repository and Ke-Sen’s invaluable work tracking conference articles – doing so costs me no time or money, as others maintain them. So another option is to share a domain and host among a bunch of people.
Yes, your own website costs a little money (the price of two cups of Starbucks per month), but admit it: you pay more in a month for your smartphone and internet service provider than the yearly cost for a website. It’s a bit of effort initially to register a domain and set up a website, but once the template and blog are in place, you’re done. Write a new article or slide set, one that took you hours or weeks to create? It’s five minutes to add it to your web page and upload it. Morgan McGuire, Andrew Glassner, and I like bluehost. Sven Bergström likes digitalocean for $5/month hosting, and gives some setup and admin tips. His previous favorite was site5. Sebastian Sylvan likes nearlyfreespeech, which I hadn’t heard of and looks quite cheap for a personal site (like, possibly something like $3.65 a year (plus $12 per Gig stored, or maybe less – the pricing is not clear), with a free Gig download a day), assuming you’re not serving up huge files or don’t get popular; ijprest notes in the comments that Amazon’s S3 hosting is bare bones, just basic hosting, but about as cheap at nearlyfreespeech and is pretty much guaranteed to outlast you.
Update Nov. 2019: A few more options, just in case. Google Domains and Namecheap are cheaper still for domain name registration, with Namecheap sounding a bit less expensive (but we’re talking a few dollars a year here, tops). For free hosting, Github is another interesting option. The advantages include collaboration and automatic backup of any changes, a la Git. We use this for I3D, for example, with the site’s elements visible to all. For non-programmer-types there are plenty of other options.
Oh, and the presentation from 2012 I mentioned in my last post that is no longer available – dead link – is now available again, as Duncan Fewkes sent me a copy and Michal Valient gave me permission to host it. It’s now here – a few minutes work on my part.
Question for the day: if Gmail and Google Docs suddenly went away, would this cause a collapse that would take us back to the 1990’s, 1950’s, or would the loss kick the world all the way back to some time in the 1800’s? Just a thought, you might want to use Google Takeout or other backup method now and then. If nothing else, visiting your Google Takeout site is interesting in that you see the mind-boggling number of databases Google has in your name.
Executive summary: if you write anything or show off any images, you should make a real website, both for yourself and for others. The followup post gives some resources for doing so.
We’ve been updating the Real-Time Rendering site (take a peek – you might at least enjoy the 4th edition cover). Today I’ve been grinding through updating URLs for the references in the book. Even though the book’s not yet out, you can see what articles we reference and jump to the article from this page.
Most of the articles can be found through using Google or Google Scholar. A few articles are trickier to find, or have a few URLs that are relevant – that’s the value I feel I’m adding by doing this laborious task. The other reason is for helping avoid link rot – I’ll explain that in a minute. Another is virus protection. For example, one blog URL, for the article “Render Color Spaces” by Anders Langlands, has had its domain anderslanglands.com (DON’T GO THERE (REALLY)) taken over by some evil entity in May 2018 and now leads to a page full of nastiness.
In going through our reference page today and adding links, doing so reminds me how tenuous our storage of knowledge is for some resources on the internet. Printed journals at least have a bunch of copies around the world, vs. one point of failure. I’ve noted this before. My point today is this: if you publish anything, go buy yourself a domain and host it somewhere (I like bluehost, as do Morgan McGuire and Andrew Glassner, but there are no doubt cheaper ways). All totaled, this will cost you maybe around $110 a year. Do it, if you care about sharing your work or are at all serious about your career (e.g., lose your job or want another? You now have a website holding your CV or work, ready to show). URLs have a permanence to them, vs. company-specific semi-hosting schemes such as Github or Dropbox, where the rules can and do change. For example, I just found a Github-based blog entry from Feb. 2017 that’s now gone (luckily still on archive.org). With some poking around, I found that the blog entry is in fact still on Github, but appeared to be gone because Github had changed its URL scheme and did not redirect from the old URL to the new one.
Once you have a hosted URL, look at how others arrange their resources, e.g., Morgan McGuire recently moved all his content from the Williams College website to his own personal site. Grab a free template, say from W3 Schools or copy a site you like. Put any articles or presentations or images or whatever that you want people to find on that site. Me, I’m old school; I use basic HTML with a text editor and FileZilla for transfers, end of story. Start a WordPress or other blog, which is then hosted on your site and so won’t die off so easily. Once you have a modest site up, you are now done, your contributions to civilization are available to everyone until you forget to renew your domain or pay for web hosting. Assuming you remember, your content is available until you’re both dead and no one else keeps up with the payments (another good reason to renew for the longest duration). Setting up your own website isn’t some ego-stroking thing on your part – some of the rest of us want continued access to the content you’ve provided, so please do keep it available. If your goal in writing is to help the graphics community, then allow your work to live as long as possible. “But my blog posts and whatnot have a short freshness ‘read by’ date,” you complain. Let us decide that; as someone who maintains the Graphics Gems repository, a collection of articles from 1990-1995, I know people are still using this code and the related articles, as they report bugs and errata to me. “I have tenure, and my school’s been around for 200 years.” So when you retire, they’re going to keep your site going?
Most of us don’t grab a URL and host it, which is a pity for all concerned. Most of the links I fixed today rotted for one of three reasons: the site itself died (e.g., the company disappeared; I now can’t find this talk from 2012 anywhere, and at least 14 other sites link to it), the subdirectory on the site was deleted (e.g., for a student or faculty member no longer at the institution), or the URLs were reorganized and no redirection was put in place (and if you’re a webmaster, please don’t do this – take the time to put in some redirection, no matter how untidy it may feel to you). Some resources that still work are hanging on by a thread, e.g., three articles on our page are served up by FTP only. FTP! Update: see my follow-up post for where to find that 2012 talk now.
BTW, people have worked on how to have their sites outlive them, but so far I don’t know of a convincing system, one where the service itself is likely to outlast its participants. Some blog and presentation content does outlive its creator, or at least its original URL, as much of the internet gets archived by The Wayback Machine. So, for the virus-ridden anderslanglands.com site, the article I wanted to link to is available on archive.org. Jendrik Illner does something for his (wonderful) summary posts that I hadn’t seen before: each link also has a “wayback-archive” link for convenience, in case the link no longer works. You can also easily try such links yourself on any dead site by using this Chrome extension. With this extension active, by default a dead page will cause the extension to offer you to look on archive.org. Links have an average life of 9.3 years before they rot, and that’s just the average. You’re likely to live longer, so do your future older self a favor by saving them some time and distress: make a nice home for your resources now so you don’t have to later.
If you’re too busy or poor to host your own content, at least paste your important URLs into archive.org’s site (you can also use the “Save Page Now” option in the Chrome extension, if you have a lot of pages) and your content will get archived (though if it’s a large PDF, maybe not). However, content on archive.org is not included in Google searches, so articles there effectively disappear unless the searcher happens to have the original URL and thinks to use the Wayback Machine. Also, people may stop looking when they try your original URL and find, for example, a porn site (e.g., this archive.org graphics site’s original URL goes to one now). This won’t happen if you have your own URL and maintain it.
For longer-term storage of your best ideas, don’t just blog about a topic, submit it to a journal (for example, JCGT takes practical articles) or article collection book (e.g., GPU Zen series, Ray Tracing Gems) and so have it become accessible for a good long while. It is possible and reasonable to take good blog content and rework it into an article. Going through peer review and copy editing will polish your idea all that much more.
These ramblings reflect my (limited) view of the world. If you know other approaches or resources to combat any aspect of link rot, please do let me know and I’ll fold them in here and credit you. Me, I hate seeing information get lost. Fight entropy now. Oh, and please put a date on any page you put up, so the rest of us can know if the page is recent or ancient history. Blog entries all have dates; everything else should, too.
Update: see my next post for some followups and a bunch of inexpensive options for making your own site.
One more day for (optionally) submitting a proposal for Ray Tracing Gems for a shot at also winning a Titan V GPU. You can find the details and an update on what (the heck) a proposal is and what we’re looking for is on this page. A proposal is optional, the article is the main thing, but we hope this promotion gets you thinking about it. We’re happy to hear from you after tomorrow, of course, so please feel free to bounce ideas off of us.
Being the last one in the world to contribute to this meme, maybe our cat Ezra will inspire you:
I’m passing on this tweet from Tomas:
#NVIDIA Titan V competition w/ Ray Tracing Gems.
Submit a one-page abstract to raytracinggems@nvidia.com
The five best article proposals will receive a Titan V graphics card. Submit before the end of June 21st.
More info: https://nvda.ws/2spqrUK
I also wanted to note that the Ray Tracing Gems CFP has been updated with some significant new bits of information:
The book will be published by Apress, which is a subsidiary of Springer Nature and the e-book will be available in PDF, EPUB, and Mobi (Kindle). We are working on getting open access for the e-book, which means that it will be free for all, and that authors may post a draft version to other sites; however, we ask that they include a link to the final version once published. The printed book will cost approximately $60.
I mentioned in a post last week that I expected interest in ray-tracing to increase. So, there actually does appear to have been an uptick in Google searches on the term “ray-tracing,” looking at Google Trends. The last time there was as much interest was March 2010 (though other months in between have come close).
It’s a funny area to explore: South Korea seems the most interested, by far. Under “Related topics” is “NVIDIA – Company,” which is not surprising. What’s funny is that if you click that topic, you find that NVIDIA is of strongest interest in Romania, followed by Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, then Russia. I assumed the explanation is “Bitcoin,” but that’s not quite right. According to NVIDIA’s CEO, it’s actually Ethereum mining, as Bitcoins are most profitably mined by custom ASICs at this point. Such a world.
Given the recent DXR announcements, Tomas Akenine-Möller and I are coediting a book called Ray Tracing Gems, to come out at GDC 2019. See the Call for Participation, which pretty much says it all. The book is in the spirit of the Graphics Gems series and journals such as JCGT. Articles certainly do not have to be about DXR itself, as the focus is techniques that can be applied to interactive ray tracing. The key date is October 15th, 2018, when submissions are due.
To self-criticize a tiny bit, the first sentence of the CFP:
Real-time ray tracing – the holy grail of graphics, considered unattainable for decades – is now possible for video games.
would probably be more factual as “Real-time ray tracing for video games – … – is now possible.” But, the book is not meant to be focused on just video game techniques (though video games are certainly likely to be the major user). I can see ray tracing become more a standard part of all sorts of graphics programs, e.g., much faster previewing for Blender, Maya, and the rest.
As far as “considered unattainable for decades” goes, interactive ray tracing has been attained long ago, just not for (non-trivial) video games or other interactive applications. My first encounter with an interactive ray tracer was AT&T’s Pixel Machine back in 1987. I had put out the Standard Procedural Databases on Usenet the week before SIGGRAPH, and was amazed to see that they had grabbed them and were rendering some in just a few seconds. But the real excitement was a little postage-stamp (well, maybe 6 stamps) sized rendering, where you could interactively use a mouse to control a shiny sphere’s position atop a Mandrill plane texture.
The demoscene has had real-time ray tracers since 1995, including my favorite, a 252 byte program (well, 256, but the last four bytes are a signature, “BA2E”) from 2001 called Tube by 3SC/Baze. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars was rendered using ray tracing on a 20-machine system by Daniel Pohl at Intel a decade ago. OptiX for NVIDIA GPUs has been around a long time. Shadertoy programs usually perform ray marching. Imagination Technologies developed ray tracing support for mobile some years back. There are tons more examples, but this time it feels different – DXR looks here to stay, with lots of momentum.
Ray tracing is, in my opinion, more easily adopted by computer-aided design and modeling programs, as users are willing to put up with slower frame rates and able to wait a few seconds every now and then for a better result. Systems such as KeyShot have for some years used only ray tracing, performing progressive rendering to update the screen on mouse up. Modelers such as Fusion 360 allow easy switching to progressive ray tracing locally, or for finished results can render at higher speeds on the cloud. I think DXR will make these few seconds into a handful of milliseconds, and near-interactive into real-time.
In a sense, this history misses the point: for interactive rendering we use whatever gives us the best quality in an allotted amount of time. We usually don’t, and probably shouldn’t, trace rays everywhere, just for the purity of it. Rasterization works rapidly because of coherence exploited by the GPU. Ray tracing via DXR is a new piece of functionality, one that looks general enough and with support enough that it has the potential to improve quality, simplify engine design, and reduce the time spent by artists in creating and revising content (often the largest expense in a video game).
Long and short, DXR is the start of an exciting new chapter in interactive rendering, and we look forward to your submissions!
The article collection GPU Zen was a ridiculously good deal at $10 for the electronic version of the book. A call for participation for GPU Zen 2 is now out. First important date: March 30th for submitting proposals (i.e., not the first draft, which is due August 3rd).
Just because I wanted to have a title with a series of 3 letter bits, I wrote out the Two. I recently read some little tidbit about some old book passage with the longest-known (at least, to him) string of 3 letter words in a row, that someone found from analyzing a huge pile of Project Gutenberg texts or similar. Can’t find the article now, thought it was at the Futility Closet site, but maybe not. Which is my roundabout way of saying that site is sometimes entertaining, it has an odd historical oddities & mathematical recreations bent to it.
To continue to ramble, in memory of the first anniversary of his death (and LAA), I’ll end with this quote from the wonderful Raymond Smullyan: “I understand that a computer has been invented that is so remarkably intelligent that if you put it into communication with either a computer or a human, it can’t tell the difference!”
I mostly wanted to pass on the word that High-Performance Graphics 2018 has their call for participation up. Due date for papers is April 12th. HPG 2018 is co-located with SIGGRAPH 2018 in Vancouver in August.
Also, let’s talk about hyphens. See Rule 1: Generally, hyphenate two or more words when they come before a noun they modify and act as a single idea. This is called a compound adjective.
Update: John Owens wrote and said “Go read Rule 3,” which is: An often overlooked rule for hyphens: The adverb very and adverbs ending in ly are not hyphenated.
So, he’s right! The hyphen is indeed NOT needed, my mistake! I didn’t do all the work, reading through all eleven rules and noting that “physically” is indeed an adverb.
Here’s the rest of my incorrect post, for the record. I guess I’m in good company – about a quarter of authors get this wrong, judging from the list of publications below.
The phrase “High-Performance Graphics” is good to go; “Real-Time Rendering” is also fine. Writing “Physically Based Rendering,” as seen on Wikipedia and elsewhere, not quite [I’m wrong]. The world doesn’t end if the hyphen’s not there, especially in a title of just the phrase itself. Adding the hyphen just helps the reader know what to expect: Is the word “based” going to be a noun or part of a compound adjective? If you read the rest of Rule 1, note you don’t normally add the hyphen if the adjective is after the noun. So:
“Physically-based [that’s wrong] rendering is better than rendering that is spiritually based.”
is correct, “spiritually based” should not be hyphenated. Google came up with no direct hits for “spiritually-based rendering” that I could find – it’s an untapped field.
Not a big deal by any stretch, but we definitely noticed that “no hyphen” was the norm for a lot of authors for this particular phrase [and rightfully so], to the point where when the hyphen actually exists, as in a presentation by Burley, the course description leaves it out.
In no particular scientific sample, here are some titles found without the hyphen:
Titles found with:
I suspect some authors just picked what earlier authors did. The hyphen’s better, go with it [no, don’t].
Now, don’t get me started on capitalization… Well, it’s easy, the word after the hyphen should be capitalized. There’s an online tool for testing titles, in fact, if you have any doubts – I use Chicago style.
But I digress. Submit to HPG 2018.
