[slashink]

My understanding is that modern renderers render in a "physically accurate" way. However, cameras throughout history has never captured images in a "physically accurate" way but rather through a set of imperfect techniques (lenses, film etc) which produces a certain look. When rendering, it's hard to make things seem realistic as they often look too perfect but something like this gets closer to how a photo would look.

[jb1991]

Path tracing isn’t really physically accurate, as it also models how cameras work. Path tracing is considered “photorealistic “. I’ll have to dig into this project more, but all pathtracing algorithms start with the fundamental principles of optics in the lens, and changing the field of view of that lens affects the image and the perspective distortion, and you also have effects like the depth of field, and other aspects we associate with cameras. Depth of field, after all, is not a physically accurate phenomenon but rather based on how cameras work, and yet that is also how 3D renderers interpret the environment.

[thrashh]

But those algorithms generally implement only the most basic aspects of a lens.

No one normally implements a model of a cheap lens that has severe chromatic aberration due to poor focusing of different wavelengths in its poorly designed glass stack.

[kibibu]

Depth of field also exists in eyeballs too

[jb1991]

It’s not quite the same effect as a camera. Eyes also do things that cameras do not.