I'm reading Advanced Global Illumination.
Here is the part confusing me:
What do the second equation and $\delta$-function mean?
Why the third equation is a sufficient condition even though a reason is given?
Computer Graphics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for computer graphics researchers and programmers. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI'm reading Advanced Global Illumination.
Here is the part confusing me:
What do the second equation and $\delta$-function mean?
Why the third equation is a sufficient condition even though a reason is given?
You are right to be confused. What I think they should have written: $$ L( x \leftarrow \Psi ) = L_{in} \delta(\Psi - \alpha) $$ using $ \alpha $ instead of $ \Theta $, which is already used as a dummy variable in the integral.
You should look up the Dirac delta function to learn its meaning and properties. In this context, you can imagine the $ L$ above as representing a very concentrated beam (a laser) coming from the angle $ \alpha $. Practically, to do the integral over $ \Psi $ with $ \delta (\Psi - \alpha) $ present in the integrand, remove the integration and replace all occurrences of $ \Psi $ with $ \alpha $. Then it should be clear how they arrive at the next line, which should read, for all $ \alpha $: $$ \int f_r(x, \alpha \rightarrow \Theta) \; \cos(N_x, \Theta)\; d \omega_\Theta \leq 1 $$.
The fact that this condition is sufficient follows from two facts: 1. that any function (e.g. $ L $) can be approximated by a sum of many $ \delta $ functions, and 2. that everything is linear. In other words, if I write $ N(L) $ and $ D(L) $ for the numerator and denominator of the left hand side of (2.21), then you can see that if $ L = L_1 + L_2 $, then $ N(L_1+L_2) = N(L_1) + N(L_2) $ and $ D(L_1+L_2) = D(L_1) + D(L_2) $. So if I know $ N(L_1) \leq D(L_1) $ and $ N(L_2) \leq D(L_2) $, then I know $ N(L) \leq D(L) $ since $$ N(L) = N(L_1) + N(L_2) \leq D(L_1) + D(L_2) = D(L) $$.