Diffuse Reflection: How is it Computed?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter floater2011
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reflection
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the computation of diffuse reflection, specifically the use of the factor 1/pi in the Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) for diffuse surfaces. Participants explore the implications of this factor and its normalization properties, as well as the conceptual understanding of light scattering in different reflection scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the computation of diffuse reflection using the formula \(\frac{1}{\pi} \times \text{LightRadiance} \times \cos(\theta)\), questioning how the BRDF can multiply the incoming light by 1/pi when the outgoing light in any direction may be significantly smaller.
  • Another participant suggests that the 1/pi factor normalizes total reflectance, indicating that integrating the BRDF over the 2*pi hemisphere should yield '1' for non-absorbing materials.
  • A participant requests sources for further reading on the topic, indicating difficulty finding explanations beyond the formula itself.
  • One participant provides a link to a resource that may help clarify the concept of diffuse reflection.
  • Another participant elaborates that while the 1/pi factor is correct, it requires context to understand its implications, noting that diffuse reflection allows light to hit the observer from a wide area, unlike specular reflection.
  • Further discussion highlights that the BRDF computes how scattered power is distributed in solid angle and mentions that a Lambertian surface is a model of a perfect diffuse reflector, with references to more complex models.
  • One participant emphasizes that the actual fraction of light emerging from a perfect diffuser must be infinitesimal compared to a specular reflection, questioning the applicability of the 1/pi factor in that context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the 1/pi factor and its implications for diffuse reflection. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the factor or its application, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the nature of light scattering and the idealized models of reflectors, which may not account for all real-world scenarios.

floater2011
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
2vl2xxh.jpg

I'm confused as to how the diffuse reflection is computed as :

\frac{1} {\pi} * LightRadiance * cos(\theta)

Where cos(\theta) is the angle between the light and the surface normal, and accounts for the light projected onto the surface

When considering light reflecting at a point from some direction wi (on a diffuse surface), which is scattered in an infinite amount of directions, how can the BRDF function only mulitply the incoming by 1/pi?

Wouldnt the outgoing light in any direction be drastically smaller than the incoming light?

I don't understand why dividing it by ~3.14 works.
 
Science news on Phys.org
IIRC, the factor 1/pi is used to normalize the total reflectance- integrating the BRDF over the 2*pi hemisphere should give '1', for non-absorbing materials.
 
Where did you read about that? I've been looking for an explanation on google but can't seem to find one, all I find is the actual formula itself.

Do you know of any books that exlain it in depth?

Thanks
 
That diagram seems correct and so does the 1/pi factor but, on its own, that information is counter intuitive and needs to be put in context. When you have a diffuse reflection, light hits the observer from a wide area on the reflector , whereas with a specular reflection, only the light from a single point reaches the observer - it is only for an infinite / large reflector that the 1/pi factor tells you just how much light, in a particular direction, you will get from a diffuse reflection. If a rough bit of dust is the reflector then you will only get a tiny amount to the observer.
 
sophiecentaur said:
That diagram seems correct and so does the 1/pi factor but, on its own, that information is counter intuitive and needs to be put in context. When you have a diffuse reflection, light hits the observer from a wide area on the reflector , whereas with a specular reflection, only the light from a single point reaches the observer - it is only for an infinite / large reflector that the 1/pi factor tells you just how much light, in a particular direction, you will get from a diffuse reflection. If a rough bit of dust is the reflector then you will only get a tiny amount to the observer.

The BRDF doesn't relate to detection- it simply computes how the scattered power is distributed in solid angle.

A Lambertian surface is a model of a perfect diffuse reflector (plain white paper is approximately Lambertian, so is the lunar surface). More complex models (Kubelka-Munk, Brown and Miller) exist as well:

http://webstaff.itn.liu.se/~freco/Publications/Courses/Paper_optics_presentation.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Resnick said:
The BRDF doesn't relate to detection- it simply computes how the scattered power is distributed in solid angle.

A Lambertian surface is a model of a perfect diffuse reflector (plain white paper is approximately Lambertian, so is the lunar surface). More complex models (Kubelka-Munk, Brown and Miller) exist as well:

http://webstaff.itn.liu.se/~freco/Publications/Courses/Paper_optics_presentation.pdf

Yes; fair enough. The point I was making is that the actual fraction of light emerging in a particular direction from a perfect diffuser (an infinitessimal) must be infinitessimal. Compare what would hit you in the eye from a laser beam, reflected in a clean mirror, and what you would end up in your direction if the beam hit a diffuse reflector. The 1/pi factor could not apply there. The integral over a hemisphere must be the same as the incident power in a 'single' direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
23K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K