- Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:18 pm
#36442

All rendering factors between these two images are identical. I find that the alpha version is better quality and higher samples over the same render time than the beta. I found this hard to believe so I repeated the test and got the exact same results.
No image post processing.
Maxwell Alpha 1.1.33, Rhinoll 0.5.5 vs Maxwell Beta 1.2, Rhinoll 0.6 vs Maxwell Beta 1.2.1, Rhinoll 0.6
Things have improved with 1.2.1, but the caustics in the metal are worse with the beta over the alpha.
*** UPDATE **
Take a look at RC5! What an incredible improvement!
Still could use a bit of time for the noise to clean up (more evident in the full-size version below), but still pretty sweet!

*** UPDATE *** April 29, 2006
Version 1 looks good! It seems to have a little more noise than RC5, but it's still pretty good! The colour seems to be richer. I had to use the complex IOR material as the "standard" copper materials had either poorer colour or weak caustics.

All rendering factors between these two images are identical. I find that the alpha version is better quality and higher samples over the same render time than the beta. I found this hard to believe so I repeated the test and got the exact same results.
No image post processing.
Maxwell Alpha 1.1.33, Rhinoll 0.5.5 vs Maxwell Beta 1.2, Rhinoll 0.6 vs Maxwell Beta 1.2.1, Rhinoll 0.6
Things have improved with 1.2.1, but the caustics in the metal are worse with the beta over the alpha.
*** UPDATE **
Take a look at RC5! What an incredible improvement!
Still could use a bit of time for the noise to clean up (more evident in the full-size version below), but still pretty sweet!

*** UPDATE *** April 29, 2006
Version 1 looks good! It seems to have a little more noise than RC5, but it's still pretty good! The colour seems to be richer. I had to use the complex IOR material as the "standard" copper materials had either poorer colour or weak caustics.
Last edited by Axe on Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.