...
| Chart |
|---|
| width | 600 |
|---|
| title | RMSE vs. TIME |
|---|
| type | xyLine |
|---|
| yLabel | RMSE |
|---|
| xLabel | Time |
|---|
| | Time | 5.72s | 8 | 12.82 | 22.18 | 40.92 | 86.91 | 165.69 | 302.98 |
|---|
| 3Delight | 0.0933142 | 0.0658266 | 0.0441248 | 0.0290439 | 0.0185575 | 0.0117566 | 0.00752546 | 0.00449892 |
|---|
| Time | 1 | 2 | 6 | 21 | 81 | 492 |
|---|
| Arnold | 0.15699 | 0.100115 | 0.0501787 | 0.0242515 | 0.0117413 | 0.00693426 |
|---|
| Time | 6.74 | 7.23 | 7.99 | 9.42 | 18.51 | 29.40 | 98.08 | 383.39 |
|---|
| RenderMan | 0.151125 | 0.121487 | 0.0953649 | 0.0728148 | 0.0373876 | 0.0265388 | 0.0138148 | 0.00854045 |
|---|
|
|
The following chart shows how much time it takes to each renderer to build the light acceleration data structure depending on sample count.
| Chart |
|---|
| width | 800 |
|---|
| domainAxisUpperBound | 300 |
|---|
| title |
|---|
|
|
...
...
| Samples | | type | xyLine |
|---|
| yLabel | RMSE |
|---|
| domainAxisLowerBound | 0 |
|---|
| xLabel | Million Rays |
|---|
| | Rays | 2.45 | 3.13 | 4.51 | 7.27 | 12.78 | 23.8 | 45.88 | 90.1 |
|---|
| 3Delight | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
|---|
| Rays | 0.678 | 3.26 | 10.8 | 43.4 | 173.6 | 694.5 |
|---|
| Arnold | 0 | 0.35 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 11 | 41 |
|---|
| Rays | 1.47 | 2.94 | 5.88 | 11.7 | 47.02 | 94.14 | 376.3 | 751.3 |
|---|
| RenderMan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|---|
|
|
Conclusions
- 3Delight generates light samples that are algorithmically better than both Arnold and RenderMan. In short, for N samples:
...