SSS lighting: Indigo vs. Famous Commercial Unbiased Renderer

General questions about Indigo, the scene format, rendering etc...
User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

SSS lighting: Indigo vs. Famous Commercial Unbiased Renderer

Post by ave » Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:05 am

deleted by user (sorry)
Last edited by ave on Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Zom-B
1st Place 100
Posts: 4665
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Location: ´'`\_(ò_Ó)_/´'`
Contact:

Post by Zom-B » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:23 am

interesting results you got here.... anyway the commercial software result seems to be to wrong to be the way it works, maybe check out on thiar forums for explanation!

BTW: since Indigo 1.1.15 there is a slightly change in SSS, maybe you just can start a test with the actual 1.1.16 and post the result!
polygonmanufaktur.de

User avatar
CTZn
Posts: 7240
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by CTZn » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:55 am

I think it would be interesting to submit the same test to an experimented M. (:)) user, it's difficult to compare unless you are experienced with both softwares.

And, I can hardly believe that there is no "workaround" for the "issue" of the other render. If you can confirm that you are experienced with the culprit of such a bad rendering performance, I'll remove the quotes ;)
obsolete asset

User avatar
SATtva_
1st Place Winner
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:44 am
Location: Russia, Siberia
Contact:

Re: SSS lighting: Indigo vs. Famous Commercial Unbiased Rend

Post by SATtva_ » Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:23 pm

ave wrote:deleted by user (sorry)
Huh?

User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

Post by ave » Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:31 pm

Sorry, I have some good reasons to do it... I'll ask the forum adm. to remove the topic.

User avatar
fused
Developer
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
3D Software: Cinema 4D

Post by fused » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:05 am

Huh? y?

User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

Post by ave » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:17 am

Well... err... I was using these Commercial softwares and, you know... :oops:

User avatar
SATtva_
1st Place Winner
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:44 am
Location: Russia, Siberia
Contact:

Post by SATtva_ » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:25 am

Do this Commercial Software license prohibits you from publicly discussing its pros and cons on internet forums? This is a rhetoric question, I think.

User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

Post by ave » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:34 am

The real problem is in the fifth word of your sentence... :wink:

User avatar
pixie
Indigo 100
Posts: 2222
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:54 am
Location: Away from paradise
Contact:

Post by pixie » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:36 am

use the demo then... :roll:

User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

Post by ave » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:39 am

I will, just give me some time

StompinTom
Indigo 100
Posts: 1821
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by StompinTom » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:47 am

if you never said anything, noone wouldve known. for all we know, youve got 50 full licenses installed on a renderfarm somewhere that you bought with your own pocket money.

User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

test reloaded

Post by ave » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:00 pm

ok, after messing around a bit here we are with this test, now in (almost) full respect of the law 8) .
The test scene is about light emitted from a small source, passing through a SSS volume (a kind of window) and lighting a floor and a wall. You can see the attached scheme. In this test I am interested in these two things:
a) how fast and accurately is direct light rendered. By direct light I mean light which has passed through SSS without significant scattering. In the scene it is the bright square spot on the floor.
b)how fast and accrately is INDIRECT light rendererd, where inidrect light is light which HAS been scattered around and it is lighting the scene all around.
The test features Indigo 1.16 (MLT transport) vs. Maxwell renderer 1.7.1 (Demo :) ). Each render has been computed for 12 hours on my MacBook Pro. Indigo runs under WINE, while Maxwell is in the native OSX version.
These are my remarks: Indigo wins by far on the direct light. In a few minutes the spot on the floor is completely cleared, while Mxl is significantly noisy even after 12h.
On indirect light Mxl is apparently much faster. Seems that somehow it is forcing the algorithm to choose paths related to scattered light first (but I am no expert of this stuff). What I don't like in Indigo is that scattered light (which should be white since scattering is uniform and equal for RGB) has some tint, which however is gradually disappearing.
Overall Indigo performs better to me here.
Final note: I am no Mxl expert, but I don't see which rendering parameters could be changed there to speed things up.
Attachments
im1235252371.png
indigo render
im1235252371.png (344.15 KiB) Viewed 2750 times
scat_compar.png
maxwell render
scat_compar.png (288.85 KiB) Viewed 2749 times
scheme.jpg
scheme of the test scene
scheme.jpg (26.53 KiB) Viewed 2753 times

User avatar
fused
Developer
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:19 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
3D Software: Cinema 4D

Re: test reloaded

Post by fused » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:20 pm

ave wrote:Overall Indigo performs better to me here.
sorry, but to me this is, if this is really the best what one can get out of Maxwell, a perfect win for indigo - with a bad ass fatality!
that the indirect light on the wall is nowhere near to sufficiently sampled is a confession of failure.

(sorry Maxwell :) im sure you have other strengths :P )

User avatar
ave
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:00 pm

Post by ave » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:23 am

That the indirect light on the wall is nowhere near to sufficiently sampled is a confession of failure.
Yes... I totally agree with you. And really I can't imagine what I could have done wrong or not optimized in Maxwell...
BTW, there is another point which I forgot: with Indigo I set the emitter to 500 W, 14% efficency and it worked properly.
With Mxl I had to increase efficency to 100% to see some significant light (and it's still too low). Bearing in mind that the whole setup is a couple of meters large, I am sure Indigo is right and Mxl wrong (try to put a 500W light in a small room if you don't agree :) )

Post Reply
22 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest