clipka schrieb:
> hobBIT <bla### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> Luxrender:
>> + Very realistic results.
>> + Nice blender integration (other commercial suites too).
>> + Imho good developer activity.
>> + Adjust lighting during rendering !!!!
>> + Easy scaling using active network interface, can add render nodes on
>> the fly (which is really needed, see below :-)).
>> - Damn long render times.
> 
> I also notice that the image is a lot grainier than the POV-Ray shot; it's not
> hard to tell that Luxrender uses some kind of monte-carlo approach.

As I understand it, rays are shot in a more or less random way. You can 
let it render as long as you wish, longer traces give results with less 
noise. I stopped my rendering at ~1200 samples/pixel, which normally 
should give a really clean image, but some scene elements can drive the 
need for higher values, i.e. reflection/refraction and size of light 
souces (this is what I understand).

> 
> Distributed rendering is a goal POV-Ray is aiming for, too; SMP is just a step
> in that direction, and the architectural changes made for SMP were already
> geared towards that goal of distributed rendering.
> 

Nice to hear ! The idea to add render nodes by simply add them during a 
render is a really user friendly way, the povray team should adapt it :-)

> 
>> POVRay:
>> + Endless possibilities due to the SDL and windows frontend. I like to
>> have full control using text files (I'm a software developer).
>> + Nice control to scale render time (Comment out parts, use flags to
>> scale quality, ...).
>> + Easy way to enhance scene by scripting.
>> + Working on ultra complex scenes even on ultra slow machines, text rules :)
>> - Development seems a bit slow (no critic!, just a bit frustating).
>> - Some issues I can't handle (Can be seen in the POV-render (the second
>> one below)), maybe some POVray pro can tell me how to circumvent them:
>>    - Areas with bad anti-alias, sometimes, even with really high AA
>> settings (see edges in the top right area).
> 
> That is strange indeed; do you think you can trim down the scene to something
> minimalistic so this effect can be investigated closely?.

I've seen this effect from time to time, areas with no direct lighting 
sometimes show aa-free areas, if I see it again, I may post them.
For this scene: After I see normals in this area of , the result seems 
to be better now.

> 
>>    - Areas which have no direct lighting do not show any normal effects
>> (All walls have bumps, but this can be seen behind the plant only).
> 
> Did you try "normal on" in the radiosity block? That *should* do it.

Two other users give me that info too, thanks again. I've enabled it, 
without a direct success. Additionally I've increased bump_size by a 
factor of 4 and I see normals now. But it seems, the render time is 
increased by the same factor :-)

> 
> What I also see is radiosity artifacts in the corners (blotchy look; it should
> be possible to eliminate them with higher-quality radiosity settings).

I've seen them too, I may increase this value, but this would remove one 
of the pro's of povray, short render times :-)

> 
> What bothers me most, however, is the curtains, and it actually shows (or
> rather, doesn't show) a feature I'm missing in POV-Ray: Diffuse translucency.
> Shouldn't be *too* hard to integrate.
> 

I read the last beta's (31-33) contain subsurface scattering, does this 
give results similar to this ? I will try this if I have some more time :-)

> 
> Furthermore, I see significant differences in brightness / contrast, but these
> may be due to (a) the curtain thing, and (b) possibly gamma issues.
> 
> 

I haven't invest that much time to create identical lighting, as both 
engines use total different approaches, maybe I will do this, maybe not :-)

hobBIT

Post a reply to this message