I was interested today after downloading the latest beta of Blender 2.8, and thought I might try comparing it to Luxcore. I modeled a very simple 'Cornell Box,' just to test the performance in a slightly difficult lighting scenario, and the results were a bit interesting, especially when it comes to the quality of denoising.
Both examples were 128 samples, with the same size and type of light-source, the same hex-color values, and the same sobol sampler. The Cycles image was rendered with "Full Global Illumination" (128 light bounces), while the Lux scene used my default setting of 10/8/8/10 bounces.
The top or first is Lux, the bottom or second is Cycles. The same scene can be viewed without the denoiser below.
Again, the top or first is Lux, the bottom or second is Cycles. The light appears brighter in Cycles because it does not have automatic camera exposure.
A couple takeaways are that Cycles has much more color noise, and OIDN is a FAR superior denoiser to pretty much all the competition.
What do you guys think?
Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Calling all Linux users: check out the new LuxRender 1.7 Flatpak! https://github.com/rrubberr/Flatpak-LuxRender
Light transport enthusiast - www.rrubberr.com
Light transport enthusiast - www.rrubberr.com
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Don't think it is fair to compare luxcore to cycles with 128 path deph for cycles and just 10 max for lux. if you want good comparison try to simulate exactly same setting for each renderer : Cameera/light / engine.
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Try to use PhotonGI in the last v2.2alpha0, the result will embracing for Cycles
But I agree with Sharlybg, can't you set the max. depth to 10 in Cycles ?
Blender foundation isn't exactly new to NIV (Not Invented Here) syndrome. Oidn is damn good and cost nothing to integrate.
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
When the Cycles denoiser was created, there was no OIDN (or BCD, or Optix denoiser).
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
When we integrated BCD, OIDN wasn't available too and so Didn't we integrated OIDN
Try to read the comments to the patch with OIDN support for Blender...
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Cycles has no bidir, nor Metropolis. It's just of of league.
p.s. cycles has bump. luxcore has NO bump
p.s. cycles has bump. luxcore has NO bump
CPU Bidir + Metropolis | Core i5-4570
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Bump ?cycles has bump. luxcore has NO bump
Or displacement ?
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
I also noticed that in cycles the noise is suppressed much worse, and that, in fact, if the fireflies appear on the image at the beginning of the render, even 5k passes may not have any effect. While luxrender handles such moments much better. Especially when there are some reflections, causing metal glare or various refractions (caustics) of glass.
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Bump. I cannot use height map reliably, it's something which pretty realiably (every single time) gives me ugly unpredictable result.
CPU Bidir + Metropolis | Core i5-4570
Re: Comparison Between Lux and Cycles
Don't have this issue. but most of the time unpredictable result come frome bad/disoder in object relative size. to solve it check your normal in edit mode. if they are not correct just Add a new mesh (cucbe/plane or whatever you want) and first select your problematic object and select the new added mesh then Ctrl +J. in edit mode delete new mesh verticles. this will reset your object relative size to make bump work better.Bump. I cannot use height map reliably, it's something which pretty realiably (every single time) gives me ugly unpredictable result.