Page History

...

...

• 3Delight generates light samples that are algorithmically better than both Arnold and RenderMan. In short, for N samples:

1. 1. 3Delight Varince Variance ~ 1/N
   2. Arnold Variance ~ 1/sqrt(N)
   3. RenderMan/RIS Variance ~ 1/sqrt(N)

• 3Delight is slower to generate these samples. Meaning that for draft (high variance) renders Arnold and RenderMan/PrMan RIS are faster. For final renders (low variance) 3Delight becomes increasingly faster with the number of samples.
• 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).