Page 1 of 10
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:00 pm
by rivoli
well, apart from the quite evident noise reduction (especially those caustics where the light gets through the glasses), dielectrics seem to work as they should: no blurred objects behind them, proper reflections/refractions, even a procedural noise on the mirror(?).
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:01 pm
by aitraaz
yep, dialectrics improved, good show...
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:02 pm
by Maximus3D
Very nice to see what 1.0 can do, or atleast a tasty bit of it
yum yum!
/ Max
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:07 pm
by rivoli
this is the part i like the most:
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:09 pm
by rivoli
adehus wrote:
and in the second comparison, does the floor on the 1.0 version look sorta like it has artifacts compared to the beta version?
nope, i don't think they're artifacts, rather reflections on the glasses from the outside patches of light. i guess.
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:13 pm
by aitraaz
maybe comparisons at 320x240 (cropped) isn't the most ideal means of identifying such issues? boh?
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:18 pm
by aitraaz
à propos, could we get a render time for the large scale image?
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:19 pm
by rivoli
adehus wrote:
not used to think in terms of properly working dielectrics...
i know what you mean, and yes, as aitraaz says bigger images would definitely help to make them out.
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:23 pm
by campomanes
can you be sure that light passes though those glasses correctly from those two pics?
I think the only think you can say for sure, is that noise clears faster (even in low lighted areas, but comparison is done in small scale, and we dont know if that scales the same for larger scales (although i guess it should!)
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:26 pm
by Maximus3D
I think we see the effect of people being so used to the results 1.2.2a beta produces that the new results from 1.0 makes people think it's due to a bug or another problem. But i'm not sure, it just looks like that
And yes, let's wait for bigger and more images and the full featurelist so it's easier to say what could be wrong if anything at all.
/ Max
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:28 pm
by hdesbois
pretty sure it's ok : look, one window with glass, the next one without, and almost same result.
Exceeeelent
HD
On second thought : I'd like to see the same scene by sunlight : Just to make sure...
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:39 pm
by rivoli
campomanes wrote:
can you be sure that light passes though those glasses correctly from those two pics?
well, yes, i'm positive it does. you know, we used to have scenes where light didn't pass at all (or it took some gigamillionhours to do so).
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:51 pm
by x_site
:: sorry guys i am a bit slow... but appart from noise redusction i don't see anything special. I still see bluring thru glass and edges look quite jagged...
Am i alone saying this?
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:59 pm
by Mihai
The jagged edges are only from the lightsource, the rest look fine. I guess it's still a problem with high contrast areas.
Apart from noise reduction, you don't see anything special? I'd say the noise reduction is DAMN special
damn damn damn special......
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:03 pm
by Olivier Cugniet
I think that the noise reduction is very very important...
and also that there is not very much new to see in these tests because they don't want to show much more...