[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 0049.png (1.82 MB, 1920x1080)
1.82 MB
1.82 MB PNG
Man, FUCK Cycles. It doesn't matter what I change in the samples settings, I just can't get clean renders. This has like 300 samples, but even when I pump it up to > 600 the fireflies in the ears don't dissapear, if anything, I think they get worse. I even started tweaking the advanced glossy samples and shit, but nothing changes.

What the fuck /3/? How can anyone get clean renders in Cycles?
>>
http://www.luxrender.net/en_GB/blender_2_5

>cycles
do yourself a favor and stop using that trash renderer
>>
>>533782
Bro, 600 is the minimum for a preview render on a first draft
>>
>>533782
The final render usually take from 1000 to 2000+ samples, depending on the complexity of the scene, reflections and transparencies

anyway, here is a video with some tips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81k22ijYiIw
>>
>>533782
>>533800
This, throw more samples at it, and turn on clamping.

Also, use whatever renderer you want.
>>
>>533800
Yeah I mean, I can throw more samples but it feels like a waste when most of the model (the neck, the chest) looks pretty good already. I was hoping to find a way to just tweak the settings and get a better result. My render times are high enough already.

Anyway I'm gonna try 2000 samples and post how it turns out.
>>
Can't you just spot render the bad parts and paste it over the big render?
>>
>>533782
Turn on clamp settings.

>>533820
Yes, you can.
>>
If you aren't doing an animation you could always clean-up the image manually in photoshop just using some color-picking. It's a lot less time endlessly tweaking settings and re-rendering.
>>
>>533782
Lux render for rendering complex/bright lighting, cycles for the workflow. But luxrender itself takes a hit in the overall quality.
>>
It seems to me that the amount of time Cycles needs to render an image with 2000 samples on GPU is as long as Arnold needs to render a crisp noise free render with the CPU.
Cylces might be fast, but its not even half as efficient.
>>
File: ironman full.png (1.32 MB, 1920x1080)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB PNG
Well doing 2000 samples did the trick! It took about 5 hours to render, because I can only use the CPU. It looks great, but still, it's anoying how Iong it takes.

>>533820
Thats possible, but rendering the whole thing did increase the overall quality.
>>
>>533964
Jesus OP, learn how to compose a shot.
His fucking neck is the focus of the image.
>>
>>533782
There's a beta build on the blenderartist forum with a denoiser attribute which seems pretty decent so far
>>
>>533964
Get a gpu, you'll thank me later.
>>
File: blur hdri.jpg (32 KB, 360x180)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>533964
OP, are you using an hdri image?

If so, try blurring it, and literally reducing the size of to it 400 px wide, or even as low as 200px.

It should get rid of the fireflies WITHOUT having to increase samples.
>>
>>533988
I actually wanted to highlight the "ear" piece that was giving me trouble

>>534332
Thanks that might help
>>
>>534372
Let me know if blurring it worked. It does in Maya, and I'm just wondering if the principle applies to blender as well.
>>
File: vigiloconfido_render.png (1.98 MB, 960x540)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB PNG
I had a similar problem, but throwing more samples at it wasn't enough.

I gave up on this render because of it, actually. Wonder if i should try again with lux?
>>
>>533830
>Turn on clamp settings.

I know someone is going to embarass me with a 5 minute google search, but whenever I've tried to google Clamp, I've never found anything that explained it in a way that let me precisely control it.
It's always a combination of "use these magic numbers such as 0.3 indirect lighting" and a vague explanation like "it samples the nearby pixels to limit the total colors based on the sigil you inscribe in the textbox"
>>
>>535191
>Wonder if i should try again with lux?

Seeing as you didn't bother to learn how to use Cycles properly, why do you think learning an entirely new renderer is going to somehow be easier?
>>
>>535191
There's no fucking light in the image.

Make the light brighter, and then bring it back down in post.
You still have to think like a photographer, no light = no information. Too much and you clip that shit. Properly expose it like a real photograph and then darken it.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.