What settings do i need to adjust for more accuracy?

Hi

In some cases blender default settings are adjusted in a way to save some time and to make render faster.
Can you tell me the highest settings to optimise to make the render much more accurate, actually i dont care much about the time if it takes longer to render then let it take. All i want is very accurate looking scene what do i need to enable.what do i need to disable what numbers do i need.to.add in any option to optimise the render in a such a way that it will make.my.render.much better

Posting some of these inaccurate renders would be a good way to get everyone on the same page.

1 Like

Which render-engine & (blender-version) matters.
Cycles ≠ Eevee ≠ Eevee-Next ≠ WorkBench.
The settings and results of these are different.

Rather than turning on Everything,

  1. Render something.
  2. Identify part of render you don’t like.
  3. Spend some time with manual for particular render-engine to see if options exist.

else…
why would you want to force computation of caustics in a desert scene with no water?
Why worry about shadows in eevee if there are none in your outer-space image?
Why worry about reflective bounces if you have no “mirrors” in your scene?

Blender is like a swiss-army knife… lots of options. It doesn’t necessarily work better if you open all the blades, scissors, screwdrivers, corkscrews, etc all at once.

:slight_smile:

2 Likes

Define “acurate”.

A bad material doesn’t get better at 16777216 samples… With this number as max possible… :thinking: you m ight try 0 in viewport for infinite computation ?? (or it stops 16777216 ???)

2 Likes

This is what i saw from one of comments

"Overall Corona is great and among top render engines for sure. It has superior light transform algorithm: a hybrid of path tracing and photon mapping. This alone allows it to offer the most realistic light behavior for the most complex scenarios. Cycles is just a path tracer. So if you need highest realism then Corona is much better

So is it possible by adjusting settings to make cycles close enough to corona.
Example to increase light path node,
Switching from agx to aces and other stuffs.
This is mostly for archviz

Ok. Thanks for elaborating.

…if you need the highest realism…

that right there takes me out of the running to help you with suggestions. I’m not into hyper-realism. I personally just like cartoony animation, and I actually really like the “looks” I’m able to achieve with Cycles. I wish it were faster, but I can’t complain.

There’s at least a dozen serious render-engines out there. You can learn to port models out of blender, or in some cases to get blender to use a non-standard render-engine… but that will involve you investing more time to learn how to obtain the results you want from each particular render-engine.

If you think Corona is better than Cycles, then I encourage you to do side-by-side comparisons (render same scene in both, and compare resulting images). If YOUR ART tells you that you need to / must use one over the other, then by all means do so.

Some people are devoted to post-processing and subtle manipulations of color-spaces… Some people swear up and down that vinyl records are superior to digitized music… I’m just not those people, so I can’t advise you further, sorry.

(My sister is a serious artist in traditional painting, where she routinely pulls all the hairs out of a paint-brush, so that she is left with only 2-3 bristles, and paints with that, tiny-dot by tiny-dot.
When she hand-paints digital-art, she routinely zooms in and spends hours agonizing over the specific shade of individual pixels.
She does mind-numbingly amazing work… but I just can’t go there.)

:slight_smile:

Thanks for reply.

Lately i found out that finding a right texture is extremely important. I was thinking when you get a texture from a good source you will get very realistic results. But some sources dont make image texture they make procedural texture which in my opinion they look somewhat fake no matter what. A few days ago i got a texture from poliigon procedural texture, when i changed that texture with image texture results were so much promising. Now i am trying to make scenes with a lot of references. Example if in my scene there is a chair and a lamp i need to try different textures different lighting setup with a lot of trials and errors until i become happy with my results. This may take hours. Because achieving hyper realistic results requires a lot of trials and errors with hours until you get the result you want it is very hard to achieve on an instant. Like you said i am doing the same thing, when i have a chair i zoom in zoom out a lot of time to find the right texture and a model with a referenced photo.

I think I can help explain what “complex scenarios” means. Cycles is realistic enough in most situations, there are just a few specific things it struggles with, being a pure path tracer. Let’s talk about the weaknesses of Cycles.

First thing before I say anything else, make sure you are using a recent version of Blender, older versions are actually less realistic, as the principled BSDF used to be flawed and slightly unrealistic. If you have read older posts about people saying Cycles is less realistic, it used to absolutely be true.

1- Cycles isn’t good at doing caustics. So much so that there are settings activated by default to blur them out of existence: “filter glossy” and clamping. If I disable those settings, I can get some very fragmented caustics.


This is rendered with 1024 samples, noise treshold disabled to give caustics the maximum chance to appear. It would take litteraly millions of samples. Path guiding can help render this, but it’s slow and does not reliably find all caustics. If you need a closeup of jewelry with lots of caustics, Cycles isn’t the best choice.

2- Cycles isn’t good at sending light through glass (refractive caustics). If you light a scene through a glass window, or encase a light source in glass, you will get a dark and noisy scene. This is usually fixed by disabling the glass’ shadow, but that’s not entirely realistic, as light going through glass would be affected by it in real life. Here again, we can see what the realistic result would be by disabling filter glossy/clamping and using path guiding. here is an image of just that, which you won’t get with default settings:

3- Cycles struggles with scenes dominated by indirect light, especially if that indirect light is coming from a small opening or a small patch of light. Here is an example where I use a spotlight to make a bright spot on a wall.


An other renderer with a different render algorithm (bidirectional path tracing, photon cache) could do this easier. Again, path guiding is Cycles’ attempt at improving this, but it’s still too slow for production at this time (so slow it’s still faster to brute force it on the GPU). You would rarely send a spotlight at a wall like this, but scenes where a small patch of sunlight enters a room through a window are common and have this problem.

4- Some of Cycles’ default settings aren’t the most realistic. If you want a fully realistic render of glass or a water simulation, you will need many more glossy bounces than the default of 4. The default indirect clamping of 10 is a bit drastic and can limit the light in some scenes (I often use 50 without problems).

5- Blender doesn’t give you much in terms of camera simulation and color correction. This isn’t necessarily a problem, but you have to be aware of it and put in the work.

2 Likes

Thank you very much for such a useful information. That is exactly what i have asked for
Can you tell me what do i need to adjust in settings in order to make the render looks better l.
What to switch on or off, what values needs to higher or lower

1 Like

In the default settings, I would first go to the clamping settings and set the indirect clamping to 50, rather than the default of 10.

I would not disable the filter glossy, unless you are specifically trying to render caustics. If you have a glass object casting a highlight through its shadow, you can reduce filter glossy to make that highlight sharper, but you would have to test how low you can get away with before the scene turns into a mess of fireflies.

The light paths (the number of bounces) are set a bit low if you want maximum realism. The defaults are good for animation, where render performance matters. But for a still image, you can get away with more. This is especially important for volumes, which default at 0 bounces. If you were to render volumetric clouds, they would look too dark without a few bounces.

I have especially increased glossy and transmission, because you can actually need to use that many bounces, for scenes with lots of glass objects or water simulations.
settings_1



The default color management settings can look a bit flat. I like to set the look to medium high contrast. Though this depends on what you do in the compositor, as you can also fix the problem there.

color_management



The “film” section of the render settings has a filter width setting which might interest you. This controls how blurry the render is. The default is 1.5, which means each pixel will be blurred half way across it’s neighbors. This is not unrealistic, as real photos are a bit blurry. A value of 1 means no blurring at all, each pixel keeps to itself exactly. A value under 1 means the anti-aliasing will get reduced, giving you a sharpened look. As you approach 0, you will get something that looks pixellated.

I have no recommendation in particular for this settings, as it depends on the look you are going for and the resolution of the image, but it’s good to know about it.



Now, let’s talk about the sampling settings. They don’t affect realism, but are relevant for render speed and quality. I like to change them to something like this, which I believe to be better fitted to the average scene than the default values:
sampling settings

Quick explanation of what each setting does:

  • Noise treshold: used to speed up the render. It does this by looking at each pixel and trying to figure out if it’s below a certain amount of noise. If the pixel is clean enough, it gets deactivated, so Cycles doesn’t waste time rendering pixels that are already clean. A smaller treshold = less noise tolerated = more quality / slower render.

  • Max samples: the point at which the render will get stopped no matter what. You could also choose to disable it (set it to 100000), in which case the render will be stopped by the noise treshold instead, when every pixel has been finished (takes longer, but ensures an even amount of noise everywhere).

  • Min samples: how many samples are rendered before the noise treshold starts being used. This is important, because Cycles needs to observe the render for a while to judge the noise accurately. If you don’t have enough min samples, complicated light scenarios could be misdjudged and get stopped too soon, leaving artifacts in the noise. If you don’t pick a min samples value (leave at 0), Cycles will pick one for you based on your other settings, which may or may not be enough depending on the scene.



If your scene has glass, the usual way to deal with it is to deactivate the shadows on those materials. The more realistic way is to switch to CPU rendering and use path guiding. However, that is really slow, so I would do that only for stills.



If you are rendering volumetric clouds or smoke simulations, you can go to the volume settings and reduce the “max steps”. This will greatly speed up the rendering of complex volumes with basically no visual difference. The default of 1024 is really high, I can get away with 256 for smoke sims easily.



When making a material, you want to make sure to keep it realistic.

Unless you know what you are doing, you are generally better sticking to the principled BSDF for most objects. Be wary of the add shader. If you start combining materials using it and you don’t know what you are doing, you will create materials that reflect more light than they receive and that’s not realistic.

Beware using a brightness value of 1 for the color of a diffuse surface, that never happens in real life (the default of 0.8 is about as bright as you would find in real life).



Be aware of the limitations of Bump. When you use a bump node, the “distance” setting is very important for realism. Bump is a flat effect that gives the illusion of depth without actually moving the surface. The “distance” represents how deep the effect is in meters, or rather how deep it would be if it was real.

This means that with the default settings, your bump will be shaded as if it was 1 meter deep. If you were to use true displacement with the same settings, an object that’s roughly at human scale would have huge spikes.

This means that:

  • bump is best used for fine detail,
  • unless you are making a bump map for a landscape or something, your distance values would likely be more in the 0.001 - 0.01 range.


Finally, keep in mind the difference between Cycles and other renderers is almost negligible compared with your own knowledge of modeling, texture, photography and lighting. If you can’t get to 99% realism in Cycles, it’s not an other renderer that will save you.

2 Likes

Thank you very much.

I’ve read this like a book to understand much better. Very useful information:)

1 Like

Hi

I just would like share my project after adjusting settings like you said. My render looks much better.

What do you think i think it looks pretty realstic?

1 Like

From a technical perspective, this is pretty much there in terms or realism. maybe the couch and pillows could use a bit of imperfections and fine wrinkles, but that’s about all I find.


There are some things I have to comment, which aren’t unrealistic, but are less plausible in the context of a room.

  • The shadows are really dark. If this is a room in a house, there should be walls to the left and behind the camera, so light would bounce all around the room and would prevent black shadows. If you don’t have walls to the left or behind, I would suggest trying to add them and see what it does to the lighting. If not, I would at least add a bit of light coming from the left, just enough to lighten those shadows a bit, but not enough to remove all contrast from the image.

  • Is the blurriness I see caused by depth of field? If yes, it might be slightly too much. What you have is plausible for a real camera, but a photographer taking a picture of a room like this to showcase it would want a clear image and would choose settings that limit DOF. I would still keep a small amount of it for realism, but barely perceivable.

  • This feels very much like an arranged set in a studio as opposed to a real, lived space. That’s not wrong if that’s what you are going for, but if you want a real lived space, there would be much more clutter and personnal belongings.


Beyond that, if you want perfect realism, you have to do some compositing. Real photos have a series of subtle imperfections introduced by the camera’s lenses and film/sensor. Those imperfections include:

  • depth of field

  • motion blur

  • lens distortion + dispersion

  • vignetting (a darkening that appears on the edges of lenses)

  • lens dirt or condensation if the environment would cause it (visible as defocussed smudges over the image)

  • grain (different from render noise, not the same pattern)

  • bloom/glare

  • film halation (if using a film camera as opposed to digital)

  • lens flares

I haven’t found one single tutorial that explains all those effects at once, so here are some of the more important ones.

lens distortion and dispersion (aka chromatic aberration)

bloom/glare

vignetting

grain (important, grain must be introduced after the previous lens effects, as it’s caused by the sensor, which is after the lens)

By re-creating those imperfections, you can give the illusion that your render is taken by a real camera. Keep them subtle though, real life photographers try to limit those imperfections.

2 Likes