100 pass comparison on the 3 different render engines in IRendernXt
Al/Rich
Finally got some time to do a quick comparison on the different rendering engines in IRendernXt
Packet mode - 100 passes 20mins 26 seconds
Path Tracer - 100 passes 55mins 48 seconds
Test Engine 4 -100 passes 13mins 48 seconds
I like the new one - Test engine 4 - the caustics in the pool area are really really great, never mind the speed increase. There do seem seem to be areas yet to resolve but very impressed. Looks like a cross between the two above.
Ps Just wondering if you want the model for a sample for user test renderings
Cheers
Richcat
Views: 1879
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Render Plus on
-
Thanks for the evaluation Richcat.
If it is OK for me to upload the model to the 3D warehouse, send it and I will add it as one of the IRender nXt sample models.
If you have time, you could add a small text image at the bottom of each cubicle to explain them better - e.g. ceiling light with mirror. - (by making the break between cubicles a little wider) Or selse send be the notes and I can add them. Also, it would be neat if each cubicle was in a separate layer so we could render them one at a time.
-
Permalink Reply by Alain Bonnefoy on
-
Very interesting!
I was never convinced by path tracer.
About engine 4, it seems it's only interesting for water depth and maybe speed. For all other cases, packet mode seems to be the best.
I test an outdoor scene and I'll show the result.
-
-
To continue this interesting topic, I'm going to talk about my tests between packet mode and engine4 on a larger model, for nigt and day rendering.
Let's talk about day rendering first:
This image has been rendered in packet mode, hi-res, 27 passes realized in 38 mn on my laptop.
This image is pretty good and if we continue, we can see that the image won't change a lot.
Here 100 passes in 2h19mn.
Anyway, we can see a problem here about water effect. I choose a to set rubble texture, scale 21, strengh 0.1 and Wrinkled, scale 40, strengh 0.1.
If packet mode correctly manage reflexion, it doesn't care about refraction at all.
In a real case, it's impossible to see straight lines under water! the image is always distorted by the surface.
Let's have a look at engine4.
I first, choosed to see what I can get with engine4 in 38mns, to evaluate if it's faster than packet mode or not.
it realized 100 passes. But don't compare the number of passes and the time spent. Both engines work in a completely different way and what is really done in a passe can't be compared.
We immediately see a difference on the water effect and, interesting thing, engine4 takes care about refraction as the Richcat tests disclosed also.
A second thing, is that the image is really grainy, but the colors a more hot.
Well, to get a smoother image, I need to continue up to at least 280 passes, 1h48 mns so, engine4 is slower than packet mode and for me, not interesting excpet for water effects.
Ok, what about night rendering now.
I'm sorry, I had to remove the background because when I rendered these images I faced a strange problem where I was unable to reduce the luminosity of the background.
Well, here is a packet mode rendering in 58 passes, 2h53.
smooth image, nice ligthning but water effect not really realistic. In fact it's better to do like you don't see under the water in this mode.
Engine4 now.
400 passes 2h53
The water effect is still interesting but the image is really unaceptable. Too grainy.
Anyway, I hoped to see swimming pool's light refraction on the pool house's walls. Maybe my water settings are not really correct. I'd be interesting to know how Richcat setted it in its test.
Anyway, I have a doubt to be able to get a smooth night rendering image with engine4, in a reasonnable amount of time. I'll try it.
I'm waiting for you comments
-
-
After 2200 passes, 17h3mn, we get the following result:
Well I tried to use marble texture for the water but I don't really like it. I prefer using both wrinkle and rubble as in my first test but with higher parameters.
Anyway, it's interesting to see that now the image is smooth and we can see light refractions on the pool house's walls.
-
Permalink Reply by Richcat on
-
Hi Alain - I've been away for a bit, on other projects. so have only just had a few moments to rely.
Interesting posts as I very very rarely do external renders. Any rendering I do now is sadly as a hobby.
The real reason I like E4 is to me it looks more natural, but as ever this is always a personal thing.
Did you use cautic switch for the pool water?
I'll try and find my original water material if your interested.
-
Permalink Reply by ivo yordanov on
-
Hi everybody!
I see your tests and fnid them really interesting. By chance i recently made i similiar render shot like that one with the house and swimming pool. I used no caustic effect for water. Just grabbed one of the water sample texture in sketchup, pulled out a bit the scale: 5.40 / 5.40. Irender nxt parameters for water that i applied were: intensity:0.50; sharpness:1.00; transparensy:0.92; refraction:1.33; translucency 0.00; texture wrinkled bump scale 70.94. Started packed mode and i think i got quite realistic water results both day and night render shots /had also put some underwater pool ligh beams that contributed to the final result :) too) I think that no matter the render engine, the secret is in the tuned settings for the materials. And one more thing, when the material settings are correct time lag for rendering does not matter, even in the early moments of the render one can see if things are going to happen well or not. If the start result seams awkward it won`t change for good further, at least this is my own humble experience :). Sorry that i cannot share the shots i talk about, but will do it on Monday.
Good luck! :)
-
-
Richcat said:Hi Alain - I've been away for a bit, on other projects. so have only just had a few moments to rely.
Interesting posts as I very very rarely do external renders. Any rendering I do now is sadly as a hobby.
The real reason I like E4 is to me it looks more natural, but as ever this is always a personal thing.
Did you use cautic switch for the pool water?
I'll try and find my original water material if your interested.
@Richcat, you are right about water effects and maybe abut glass rendering also, for other situations, I think the difference is maybe not so significant.
I'll try to add caustic bit.
Do you know what new options "Attenuation" and "Dispersion" are for?
@ivo, I don't really agree with you when you say that the rendering engine is not important. That's sure that the material setting is the key. But our tests show that, based on the same settings, rendering results could be quite different and it appears that some of them are "specialized on some materials.
I think you are right when you say that main effects quickly appear but they can be more precise with the time.
It's specially true with light effects, about refraction for exemple.
For Path tracer and engine 4 it's a bit different because first passes give very grainy images and it really takes time to get fine results.
We are interested by you next results.
-
-
One thing about the engines, is that they sometime don't use or need all the settings.
For example, Engine 4 always does caustics, so if you compare a rendering of transparent objects, without caustics turned on, in Packet Move vs the same model, with automatic caustics in Engine 4 you will see a definite difference. Some of these things are off by default in Packet Mode, because we want to make a quick Packet Mode rendering as fast as possible by leaving out some effects unless they are needed.
-
-
Richcat - I would still love to put your model on the 3D warehouse, and perhaps open it up for our SketchUcation threads where we let people render it with other rendering engines for posting on ShetchUpRendering.com
It would be great to have scenes and layers to isolate the boxes one at a time for people who want to use it as a starting point for experimentation.
-
-
Hi again!
As promised I apply 3 shots made with packet mode, no caustic. I think there is still a large room for improvement, however the water seems to me quite convincing. I forgot to apply intensity on the plant pot which spoils a bit the overall impression, maybe next time will be more careful :)
-
-
-
About
Search
Enter a phrase here to search the entire Render Plus web site:
Loading
Translate
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Render Plus.
Powered by
