Users browsing this topic
Forgive me, I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing the render algorithm but I have compared this engine with Fstorm and Iray and it seems like I'm getting a bit more realism out of them. Is it just that I maybe need to crank the sampling up to get a better definition of shadows and depth?
Hi, this is usually about post render settings of contrast, LUT, tonemapping and things like that. The RAW image output is practically the same if we talk about the same material models, however they may differ a little bit too sometimes.
Sometimes the softness shadows of the HDR Image may differ because different renderers may use differerent internal thresholds to get HDR lighting. Here the gamma and multiplier settings may change the look.
Is Iray itself still alive? It was transformed into Omniverse in Nvidia.
Haha, yes. IRay is alive if you can find it by itself. I believe it stopped at version 2.6. Thanks for the info, I'll dig a little further into the tone mapping settings. I may also not be giving enough iterations. IRay looks great but is slow and clunky, at least on my machine.
As far as I know you use the old Iray from years ago. But it was redirected to the Omniverse product of Nvidia and as an offline quality engine co-exists with real-time path tracers there.
Many aspects of realism come from tone mapping. It can't be underestimated. For example if in CentiLeo you add Aces tonemapping, then LUT and then some bit of Bloom and some contrast tuning and you get very big difference.