Actually all of the methods should converge to a similar result so why bother
This is certainly not true. Direct lighting looks way different than Metropolis and now I am seeing that low discrepency has it’s look as well. Even after hours of convergence.
I have just begun comparing the various integrators and samplers (mix and matching). Typically I just use Metropolis, but I saw a post on the Lux forum about the distributed path integrator and I thought I’d give it a try. One of the nice things about the DP integrator is that You can control the bounces and samples for the various material types and properties.
For me, it was a realism break through in the way the lighting is being rendered that BiDirectional was not achieving, not necessarily texturing. I don’t actually see the blurriness you mention (perhaps the forum has squashed my image with jpeg compression), but maybe I have been working on it too long to see my own mistakes. Using the DP integrator and low discrepency sampler, I can get a “clearer” picture then using Metropolis and BiDirectional.
Mainly I am offering up a road map to success for new Lux users. I have spent hours trying out various settings only to get lack luster results and images that are of no use as “finals”. By starting off with the settings I have posted, you are pretty much gauranteed to get an image of acceptable final quality (setting aside my noobish texturing abilities).
10 hours doesn’t seem very impressive
Ten hours was simply when I stopped the render. I had let it run overnight. I ran it again and it converged in only 5 hours also, I have already cut the 5 hours down to around 3.5 hours (on a dual core) for acceptable similar results by changing a few of the posted settings. For me, it is not so much about the time spent for the image, it is about the quality of the light which the Blender internal render can not achieve.
I don’t foresee using Lux for animation, except maybe in direct lighting mode, but that is more experimenting of course:o