Chaos Corona for 3ds Max > [Max] Tutorials & Guides

Path tracing samples VS passes

<< < (2/4) > >>

Juraj:
I see, thanks for insight DeadClown ! The Light samples is something I struggle to evaluate properly, even with tests, I sometimes see very little difference to judge.
How do unbiased renderes (like Maxwell), go around this ? What is the universal solution ? I just kept it at default 2 so far, and had no trouble, but I rarely use artificial lighting.

DeadClown:

--- Quote from: VadoZe on 2013-10-17, 21:22:12 ---So as DeadClown said: Passes are analogue of Vray DMC image samples, and PT samples - VRay material subdivs?
Means Passes response for AA, MBlur, DOF, and PTs - noise!

--- End quote ---

You can't compare it "directly" since Vray is more complicated than Corona in that sense.
You just have a lighting multiplier and a pathtracing multiplier in corona. Lighting = everything actually illuminating the scene (lightsources, environment map, ...) and pathtracing = Global illumination, light bouncing from objects.

You don't have "separate" subdivisions like vray for reflections or lightsources - corona actually has "reflections from lighting" and "reflections from GI" (which you can see if you check the render elements, you have have both separately).

The rest - the passes - are just the number of times an eye ray (sample from the camera shooting through the pixel into the scene) is shot per pixel. If you render 100 passes in corona it is the same thing as rendering 10 subdivisions with Vray's fixed image sampler

DeadClown:

--- Quote from: Juraj_Talcik on 2013-10-17, 21:27:06 ---I see, thanks for insight DeadClown ! The Light samples is something I struggle to evaluate properly, even with tests, I sometimes see very little difference to judge.
How do unbiased renderes (like Maxwell), go around this ? What is the universal solution ? I just kept it at default 2 so far, and had no trouble, but I rarely use artificial lighting.

--- End quote ---

If you don't see any difference you should leave it as it is :) It's just a good idea to check the direct lighting render element if you got some noise in the scene which is not clearing up - it might be direct light noise not GI noise. If your light is coming through big windows or you're doing an exterior it's likely that 2 subdivisions are completely sufficient.

Unfortunately I don't know how maxwell does it, but small openings are a problem for them too (I talked to a next limit guy about that ;) ) . Btw, Corona "can" be unbiased too if you want it, just render pt+pt and set msi to 0 ;)

Juraj:

--- Quote from: DeadClown on 2013-10-17, 21:34:52 ---
--- Quote from: Juraj_Talcik on 2013-10-17, 21:27:06 ---I see, thanks for insight DeadClown ! The Light samples is something I struggle to evaluate properly, even with tests, I sometimes see very little difference to judge.
How do unbiased renderes (like Maxwell), go around this ? What is the universal solution ? I just kept it at default 2 so far, and had no trouble, but I rarely use artificial lighting.

--- End quote ---


Btw, Corona "can" be unbiased too if you want it, just render pt+pt and set msi to 0 ;)

--- End quote ---

True, Keymaster told me that half a year ago but I got to use it just few times :- ). But once I do that, I can still set PT and Light Samples, which is what differentiates it heavily from classic unbiased packages, which (to my knowledge only...atleast Maxwell) don't let you do, so I wondered what do they use internally presumably ? This leads me to thought, that there must be certain "pretty" universal settings, that foremost works for most scenarios. And where would this value be in Corona concerning Pt and Lt samples.

Because I know there are "tinkerers" (and tinker-experts, like you :- ) ..) who like to adjust settings, but I would wager to say, 98perc. of people including me, do not. So as long as there is "stupid-proof" settings, that will work out "eventually" any "not too unusual" scene, I am all for it. Eventually, there could be some default presets later on with Corona, even Vray3.0 will have that, albeit rought, but I welcome that.

While the idea of comparing GI vs Directlight might be logical and flexible, it feels unnatural to me as need to make changes that have consequence against each other. Sliding bars high (Vray, Arnold,etc..) or keeping it high (Maxwell,etc.) is something my simple mind goes around more easily.

DeadClown:

--- Quote from: Juraj_Talcik on 2013-10-17, 21:54:12 ---Because I know there are "tinkerers" (and tinker-experts, like you :- ) ..) who like to adjust settings, but I would wager to say, 98perc. of people including me, do not. So as long as there is "stupid-proof" settings, that will work out "eventually" any "not too unusual" scene, I am all for it. Eventually, there could be some default presets later on with Corona, even Vray3.0 will have that, albeit rought, but I welcome that.

--- End quote ---

Actually this whole thread is just about optimizing and "getting the best quality/time ratio". For most of the people here (and I share your opinion about the 98%) the defaults work pretty well - they may not be the fastest settings but they work. You don't need to change anything if you're happy with your results after some hours rendering.
The problem is that it's a lot more difficult to render animations with corona, and if you want to render some hundreds of frames you want to get the best rendertimes possible. I agree that it might be useful to create exterior and interior presets in the future (like, exterior, interior (small windows), interior (open and bright)).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version