So the trick is to find the lowest samples that are "good enough" to give you want. For example, an image made from a sample count of 1000 will, under most circumstances encountered by scenes generated from Alibre, be no different than a sample count of 9,000,000, for a given image output size. You're correct in that, at a certain point, there is no human-perceptible difference. So long story short, the more samples you have, the more chance you have given these random rays to propagate the scene and hit whatever they will hit and eventually land on part of the model that represents a pixel. These are made up numbers but just illustrates what a sample is. For other scenes, it may take 45,000,000. For some simple scenes, maybe 1,000,000 random rays is enough to make you say "that looks good enough". Then it sends another 10000 (made up) rays randomly and waits to see what those hit. So instead, it sends out say 10000 at a time and waits to see how good the result is, as defined by your human eyes. Since we need so many rays to hit everything, statistically, we do not want to ask the computer to send out 1000000000 rays at once - you would be sitting there forever, and for many scenes you don't need that many. Active areas of research in general focus on ways to make rays that are smarter than random. But you really need a loooot of random rays flying around to get a final image. Once all the rays have been calculated, you get an idea of what the final image will be like. If you like the science, what's basically happening here is that a bunch of random rays are being cast throughout the scene from the camera, and along their journey they hit various things and get absorbed (matte materials) or reflected (depending on the roughness value) or transmitted (glass/wax/subsurface materials) etc. Over time, the painting resolves to being "correct". Then they keep adjusting, adding more detail, especially more small detail. The result looks kind of like what you're after, you can tell what it is. Think of it like this - when an artist paints something, they often start with the big features first. Thank you for everyone's time and great support.Ĭlick to expand.That is roughly true, though I think the term "color" here, while accurate, is perhaps misleading. Sorry for my English, I use a translator. Because now it seems to me that you are developing pretty fast.īut please don't take this as a request (for the next version ), rather as a thank you for the work of you and the whole development team. And maybe I will upgrade next year (I assume there will be another version of Alibre). However, I've been thinking about it lately. That's why I haven't upgraded to a better workstation yet. Except for some small exceptions (when working for a long time without closing the application). And Alibre works quite well on it so far. The station has 16 GB RAM and an Intel Core I7 processor. Maybe that's the problem why this feature can't be turned on now. I am using an older workstation that uses an NVIDIA Quadro K1100M card. I have an NVIDIA graphics card, but I can't turn this option on. Now after your reply I understand that I would have to use different materials (transparent) to make it clearly obvious. I was just surprised that there is no visible difference between the images when I use higher number of samples. As I wrote above due to the advice of people here on the forum and a short study on the internet the pictures already look pretty good.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |