Bidir - eye- and lightdepth

[strahlentherapeut]

Hello community,

besides asking. When I increase the eye- and light depth (bidir), which multipliers are useful? Must they divisible by certain numbers? Do the numbers over 16 are getting doubled?
Which combination is useful? I was able to observe that water looks dull by settings 350/350. Not so by 512/512 or 256/256.Thank you.

st

[Abel]

I was able to observe that water looks dull by settings 350/350. Not so by 512/512 or 256/256.

That is quite a surprise. Have you by any chance saved those renderings?

[Meelis]

I think it had to be divisible by 4

[jeanphi]

Hi,

Apart from the fact that they must be >=0, there's absolutely no limit to the values.

Jeanphi

[strahlentherapeut]

Hi,

o. k. thank you. The numbers 350/350 were only a test. I have massive problems with a little part of a pool you can see in the right side of the camera. I changed the settings since 2 weeks ( render settings).
The pic looks very good I think, but the little oart of the pool. I increased the eye- light depth to 1000 and the bounces to 25. When I increase the bounces the reflections are better in the pool but not in the window of the house you know. When I reduce the eye- light depth lower than 256/256, the water of the pool looks not very realistic. When I increase the settings about 512 and bounces 25, the reflections are to transparent in the window of the house. I think it is the angel of the camera relative to the pool. I have the scene modeled by a photography and I dont want to change the angel of the camera. Not in principle.
I have a pic for example. Settings - 256/256 and bounces 16. Ca 400 s/p after 9 hours!!

Although the pool is only a marginal phenomenon, but it is a part of the whole

[jeanphi]

Hi,

Make sure you're using architectural glass for the window panes. You should be able to get good result with much lower depth, around 20 should be more than enough. The pool looks correct to me with such a cloudy sky.

Jeanphi

[strahlentherapeut]

hi jeanphi,

I always use architectural for window panes, but the "problem" with the noise are not the windows itself. The problem are the reflections you know. The reflections are noisy long time. I test the scene with lower depth. This was my thought too. Thank you.



Edit: The sky is not cloudy. There are a few clouds in a blue sky. I think the geometry cover the light of the HDRI.
and what do you mean with depth? The bounces or the depth at "advanced"?

[B.Y.O.B.]

You could try firefly rejection (in the camera tab on the bottom) with a value like 6 or 7.

[jeanphi]

Edit: The sky is not cloudy. There are a few clouds in a blue sky. I think the geometry cover the light of the HDRI.
and what do you mean with depth? The bounces or the depth at "advanced"?

The sky might not be cloudy but there's no sun light: the shadows are extremely dull, that's a difficult lighting scenario.
The depth and the bounces are the same.

Jeanphi

[strahlentherapeut]

Hi,

B.Y.O.B: Do you mean firefly rejection because of the fireflies in the pool? The problem is that the f-rejection is to expensive for my scene. I think the angel of the camera is "unfavorable" (ungünstig).
The whole scene is relatively slow.

jeanphi: I show you the HDRI, maybe the scaling to 70% makes this kind of shadows. I always have "dull" shadows.
O. k. the bounces. When you say depth, you mean bounces. But when I say eye- and light depth...? How I can differentiate when the people talk abouth depth? And what is the difference?

HDRI

st