I always thought that light strategy only change how lights are sampled. So for example some lights can be noisier when undersampled.
However clamping with low values also kills lights with low importance either due to light strategy or if you manually change importance.
Now I understand that this might be the nature of how clamping works in luxcore. But maybe this could be avoided
For example, if I use logpower and low clamping, my strong lightsource(sun) is going to appear much dimmer (respectively with power light strategy and low clamping values, weak lights get killed off)
But if I then set sun importance to 10 for example, I get my sun power back to normal in rendering but the performance is still great.
So the question is, can there be a fix for clamping so that it doesn't change lighting contribution for lights with lower importance? This could make lower clamp values work very well for certain cases.
some examples and testscene here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=619&start=110
Light strategies and importance change lighting
Forum rules
Please upload a testscene that allows developers to reproduce the problem, and attach some images.
Please upload a testscene that allows developers to reproduce the problem, and attach some images.
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
No without some type of warmup with rejection of samples during that period or some additional memory storage.
A solution that may be worth trying is the BCD spikes removal option without the denoiser part. It uses a samples histogram (i.e. the additional memory I was talking about) to reject samples in the "high" band of the histogram (i.e. fireflies).
It should be very effective without requiring an hand defined clamp values (i.e. the most significative advantage) at cost of memory storage (i.e. an histogram for each pixel requires a significative amount of ram at high resolutions.
Short version: there are no free lunch, or we spend performances (trowing away initial samples), or we spend ram (i.e. histogram), or nothing but we have to hand tune the clamping value.
A solution that may be worth trying is the BCD spikes removal option without the denoiser part. It uses a samples histogram (i.e. the additional memory I was talking about) to reject samples in the "high" band of the histogram (i.e. fireflies).
It should be very effective without requiring an hand defined clamp values (i.e. the most significative advantage) at cost of memory storage (i.e. an histogram for each pixel requires a significative amount of ram at high resolutions.
Short version: there are no free lunch, or we spend performances (trowing away initial samples), or we spend ram (i.e. histogram), or nothing but we have to hand tune the clamping value.
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
Or to preserve how strong lights appear and not get them killed off by lightstrategy and clampling, don't clamp direct lighting... Free lunchDade wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:02 pm No without some type of warmup with rejection of samples during that period or some additional memory storage.
A solution that may be worth trying is the BCD spikes removal option without the denoiser part. It uses a samples histogram (i.e. the additional memory I was talking about) to reject samples in the "high" band of the histogram (i.e. fireflies).
It should be very effective without requiring an hand defined clamp values (i.e. the most significative advantage) at cost of memory storage (i.e. an histogram for each pixel requires a significative amount of ram at high resolutions.
Short version: there are no free lunch, or we spend performances (trowing away initial samples), or we spend ram (i.e. histogram), or nothing but we have to hand tune the clamping value.
Also, take a look at this extreme case. Doesn't it look more properly clamped with tweaked importance(based on light power)? And if on top of it we wouldn't clamp direct lighting, it would be pretty fast and close to unclamped(visually), don't you think? Of course, I intentionally used very low value, could do much better with something between 25-100, which is still pretty low to give a nice boost in perf.
Actually, looking at those pictures it could be interresting to see how default logpower with clamping only indirect light could look....
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
I am finding this to be the best option. (letting it breath as much as possible)hand tune the clamping value.
In the Suggested Clamp Value switch, it does say that it is only a starting point.
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
How do I set this up so that the denoiser only effect the fireflies?BCD spikes removal option without the denoiser
Thanks
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
It is an option I have to add but it should be pretty easy.
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
Why not use clamping? BCD eats a ton of memory and thus limits severely how big your renders can be.
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
I thought that if just the fireflies could be removed, then the overall average of brightness could then be greater.Why not use clamping? BCD eats a ton of memory and thus limits severely how big your renders can be.
But I'm just guessing as it's all a huge learning curve for me.
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
Dade
Thank you
I think that would be cool!It is an option I have to add but it should be pretty easy
Thank you
Re: Light strategies and importance change lighting
Here's what you have to do, or could try. Use clamping value of 100 000 (in case you are using sun for example) and if you are still seing fireflies, lower clamping value until you don't see fireflies and/or image starts to look weird(compared to unclamped). If you are using sun, and also some glass or water type of material that is visible by camera and sun, you might want to disable specular visibility in sun properties in blender.Racleborg wrote: ↑Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:35 pmI thought that if just the fireflies could be removed, then the overall average of brightness could then be greater.Why not use clamping? BCD eats a ton of memory and thus limits severely how big your renders can be.
But I'm just guessing as it's all a huge learning curve for me.
If you are still seeing some fireflies you might want to check that you are not using oversaturated or too bright materials(that would try to reflect 100% of color or brightness) and/or just post example in the forum to be sure. I do think (personal opinion incoming) that using BCD for just fireflies is overkill and should be avoided at all times due to performance and being too heavy on resources.
Clamping works well if you use high enough values, I personally just abuse it too much cause I think that something is terribly boken with, mainly and I'm trying to convince Dade that direct light doesn't really need to be clamped no one needs it.