I agree, and thanks for your input, but I’m just telling that the same settings and the same light produces different images with different noise levels. And asking if there is any reason beyond the obvious pre alpha work in progress new render engine.
The more Cycles X mature the more it will move away from the “old cycles look” simply because they are planning to implement new algorithms (like the recent volume/shadow catcher ones, etc… correct me if i’m wrong), so in my opinion you shouldn’t expect 1:1 between them and just “embrace” the new cycles X as the old one’s days are numbered (ending with 2.93 LTS 2 year support).
2 Likes
I’m really hoping so because personally I’m not crazy about the current Cycles look. Something about it makes most of the materials look more plasticky than other render engines. I hope that they’re re-evaluating the entire pipeline and how materials and lights are actually rendered.
6 Likes
While I love Cycles and this article is also a little biased maybe I do feel that other render engines do look a tick better
So cycles x not only rebuilding cycles but going further is great to hear
I wonder if using ACES with Cycles could produce a color closer to the Octane one.
so multi GPU does work now - I see quite a difference
but the second GPU is not utilized the same way - it seems currently 20% to 30% head room based on what I can observe in the GPU task manager area.
Cycles x 2 0:31
1 0:56
Cycles 2 0:49
1 1:33
It is nice to see that multi GPU also works for the viewport rendering !!!
Cycles X has and no CUDA errors - yes!
Cycles still breaks when using two GPU in viewport while it renders with two GPU for final image.
Fun fact Optix was prone to shut off my macPro running windows10.
1 Like
If the only thing making Octane look better is it’s spectral rendering, then you should look at the Spectral branch of Cycles (they just released a new version yesterday that works with Cycles X, and are trying to wrap things up to send it for review to merge with master)
discussion topic
2 Likes
I had pointed this out on a test render many posts up, but no one picked up on it. There is definitely a vast difference in the look between Cycles and Cycles X. I don’t know if I can see anything that points to it being better or that is is leading to a better look. Just different. Or maybe those subtle differences might lead you to adjust materials and lights differently. Hard to say.
On that subject, (improving the Cylces look) I am a huge fan of how Renderman looks.
Note: Not to derail… but Renderman 24 is out with support for Blender 2.92
And Cycles got a huge boost in the right direction with the Principled Shader.
1 Like
Today at my day job I will fill my hours by taking youtube videos and converting them to articles without actually adding anything of value over the original video.
3 Likes
If you could just pull some tweets and add some reaction GIFs that would be great. Buzzfeed journalism at its best
1 Like
One theory.
The “Cycles look” started to become commonplace with the introduction of the Principled shader nodes (which led to many people abandoning the idea of custom setups in favor of using them for everything). Years ago we had people unveiling custom group nodes like the Universal Shader, some of which produced amazing results.
The issue is that by doing so, you simply can’t do things like use a custom fresnel curve or use oren-nayer shading (which can be found in the lower level components). The choice to replace Oren-Nayer shading with some hack as far as roughness goes may actually be a major contributor to the plastic look.
5 Likes
Those comments were not directed towards you, it was more of a comment of the state of blogosphere journalism. No need to take it personally. Hope your baby is feeling better soon!
1 Like
I would love to hear some more specifics about what the differences are and why they are seemingly insurmountable.
It’s frustratingly handwavy to just hear: “It’s off, It’s less realistic, less under control, it just has a look”
I can understand if this is coming from a layperson, but even highly accomplished CG artists are unable to truly articulate and demonstrate the difference.
Anyone out there know how to describe the difference without waving their hands?
1 Like
Ok my fault then sorry - I removed my post
That’s a pretty valid point and fair - but I think this goes beyond just principle shader. Lights GI all those affect an image too.
That’s were I struggled with archviz in cycles too to a certain degree. Truly I could / should have employed color correct afterwards more too.
Friends who use Corona also stated the same about lights and GI.
With all the speed up and Cuda optix now possible Lux became very interesting again instead of using cycles.
After further inspection, I’ve found the problem.
For some reason, the spot light I’m using on the scene is creating heavy noise/fireflies on Cycles X. The only way of avoinding this is increasing the size of the light, however it creates another problem of changing the look and specially the shadows.
I feel cycles gets very close just sometimes a tiny bit is different.
Fresnel issues for example you come across a lot here in the forum.
Lack of good caustics etc
To me this is what sometimes makes you feel it being lacking without the rendering screen with errors.
I don’t know is scene setup and lightini agree that in octane the windows just look better but while the cycles are is dull I feel the octane care has a point light infront making the rendering look bad
I agree that octane does look ‘better’ but i am still looking for quantifiable things. Caustics I get, that one makes sense.
It’s really difficult. Try asking cinematographers why they prefer the look of Alexa over RED and they’ll start talking about highlight roll off and desaturated shadows, but the truth is that even they don’t quite know for sure.
3 Likes
reminds me of audiophiles: ‘warmer, more natural sound, truer to life’
sorry, this is OT for this thread. I’ll stop, haha
3 Likes