...
| Samples | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 256 | 512 | 1024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Time | 6.74s | 7.23s | 7.99s | 9.42s | 12.12s | 18.51s | 29.40 | 1:38.08 | 3:15.77 | 6:23.39 |
| TTFP | 3.1s | 3.2 | 4s | 4.7s | 6.7s | 9s | 15.5s | 51.2s | 97s | |
| Rays | 1.47 M | 2.94 M | 5.88 M | 11.7 M | 21.1M | 47.02 M | 94.14 M | 376.3 M | 751.3 M | 1499 M |
| RMSE | 0.151125 | 0.121487 | 0.0953649 | 0.0728148 | 0.0520606 | 0.0373876 | 0.0265388 | 0.0138148 | 0.00854045 | 0.00396 |
| The following plot gives us a good |
...
| idea on the algorithm sophistication of the different |
...
| light samplers. |
|
The following plot gives us a good idea the time required to achieve a certain quality. From the user perspective, this is an important quantity.
The following chart shows how much time it takes for each renderer to build the light acceleration data structure depending on sample count.
chart
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The following plot gives us a good idea the time required to achieve a certain quality. From the user perspective, this is an important quantity. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The following chart shows how much time it takes for 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 effective samples:
...