...
The following chart shows how much time it takes to each renderer to build the light acceleration data structure depending on sample count.
|
Conclusions
- 3Delight generates light samples that are algorithmically better than both Arnold and RenderMan. In short, for N samples:
...
- 3Delight is slower to generate these samples. Meaning that for draft renders Arnold/PrMan are faster. For final renders 3Delight becomes increasingly faster with the number of samples.
- Arnold has predictable sampling control that behaves in a linear way.
- Both Arnold and RenderMan produce biased images at low sample counts. More specifically: images are darker. This explains higher RMSE with low sample counts. 3Delight manages to keep the same energy overall independent on sample counts.
- Arnold, 3Delight and RenderMan rely on acceleration data structures to sample the geometric area lights. In Arnold and RenderMan, the algorithmic complexity to build those data structures is tied to the number of samples as well as the complexity of the light. In 3Delight, only to the complexity of the light matters (time to first pixel for 3Delight was 3 seconds no matter how many samples there are).