Page 1 of 2
Quality Comparison - Caustics - Updated Version 1
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:18 pm
by Axe
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.
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:25 pm
by j_petrucci
mhh.. I think "surface" caustics quality (the light pattern on the floor) is better in beta than in alpha (more natural and smooth); the problem is indeeed the bigger noise in the reflection of the caustics on the copper metal..
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:18 pm
by Axe
Updated with test from Beta 1.2.1. Still looks like the beta has some issues with reflections............
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:23 pm
by Mihai
Could also be due to the automatic bounces in beta. It is not clear here, but in other tests you get more detail in caustics when using beta than with alpha.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:14 pm
by bakbek
but 5 samples less... in beta at the same time. WHY ? this is a downgrade not upgrade... or did i miss something?
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:56 pm
by Axe
Still no improvement in caustic reflections with beta 1.2.2. The alpha reflections still look better (smoother). Since the beta is faster, we shouldn't have to let it cook for longer to get the same results.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:13 pm
by Axe
RC5 Rocks!
Image quality is so much better, for the same amount of time.
I didn't test the other RC's since they were so buggy.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:17 pm
by Maximus3D
Great comparison test thingy side by side like this!
RC5 does indeed rock the socks off the older versions bigtime.
/ Max
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:18 pm
by Thomas An.
wow
I think that is a substantial step.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:18 pm
by Olivier Cugniet
great test Axe
pretty obvious that RC5 is much better
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:21 pm
by Mihai
Excellent, as this test shows RC5 is indeed faster than either beta or alpha, but sun and sunlight obviously need optimizing.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:31 pm
by rivoli
very useful row of tests you got there. that really shows some kind of leap forward.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:50 pm
by tom
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:53 pm
by Eric Lagman
Looks like people doing simple scenes like product shots etc, which is what I mostly do, are having a better time than those doing archviz with sunlight. I guess this makes since seeing as how it was said somewhere that rs1+ will be better for simple stuff, and rs2 will be better for more complex scenes. The RC5 blows the other ones away.
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:17 pm
by sam7
Great!
I'm glad you achived all these images!!
