Octane 3.0 RC1 for SI released :)
Posted: 12 Jul 2017, 17:08
unofficial SOFTIMAGE© community
https://www.si-community.com/community/
Yes fully gpuxsi_fanatic wrote:That's awesome ! Is it fully GPU ?? Like Redshift ?
https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic ... 21#p273838xsi_fanatic wrote:Also how much is it ?
Quoted from Here:Unbiased - Unbiased renderers like Maxwell, Indigo, and Luxrender are typically hailed as "physically accurate" render engines. Although "physically accurate" is something of a misnomer (nothing in CG is truly physically accurate), the term is meant to imply that an unbiased renderer calculates the path of light as accurately as is statistically possible within the confines of current-gen rendering algorithms.
In other words, no systematic error or "bias" is willfully introduced. Any variance will manifest as noise, but given enough time an unbiased renderer will eventually converge on a mathematically "correct" result.
Biased - Biased renderers, on the other hand, make certain concessions in the interest of efficiency. Instead of chugging away until a sound result has been reached, biased renderers will introduce sample bias, and use subtle interpolation or blurring to reduce render time. Biased renderers can typically be fine-tuned more than their unbiased counterparts, and in the right hands, a biased renderer can potentially produce a thoroughly accurate result with significantly less CPU time.
No you're wrong of course in progressive mode RS takes the sample weight into account !mc_axe wrote:Very interesting quote Draise i always believed that 'unbiased' was a little bit unfit term for these progressive renderers (that improove a frame till infinity), but now the term makes more sense.
I can see now for example that Redshift claims is 'fully biased' because of that non progressive mode where you can bias the result with samples for all individual parts (like for example the samples for the glossyness of x material). On progressive mode it overides all the individual samples and is just another unbiased renderer.
On topic, im happy that companies still consider Softimage users, i will check out the new Octane.
I believed the same, but someone corrected me in the forums, in the docs is more clear:NNois wrote:No you're wrong of course in progressive mode RS takes the sample weight into account !mc_axe wrote:Very interesting quote Draise i always believed that 'unbiased' was a little bit unfit term for these progressive renderers (that improove a frame till infinity), but now the term makes more sense.
I can see now for example that Redshift claims is 'fully biased' because of that non progressive mode where you can bias the result with samples for all individual parts (like for example the samples for the glossyness of x material). On progressive mode it overides all the individual samples and is just another unbiased renderer.
On topic, im happy that companies still consider Softimage users, i will check out the new Octane.
When progressive rendering is enabled, certain renderer features and options have no effect. These are:
All unified sampling settings (including filtering)
Subsurface scattering. Redshift's SSS implementation is computed as a separate pass so it's only available to production (non-progressive) renders
Photon mapping (including caustics). Redshift's photon mapping implementation is computed as a separate pass so it's only available to production (non-progressive) renders
Irradiance cache, irradiance point cloud. These are not needed because progressive rendering computes GI in a brute-force way.
All parameters that have to do with "number of samples". Examples include the number of samples for Depth-Of-Field, number of samples for glossy reflections or refractions, number of area light samples, etc.