moure wrote:Hi guys, not sure if here is the right place to add this
I was using maxwell for a commercial project the other day and i noticed that instead of render passes they use a Sampling level statistic. Here is some basic info from the documentation of maxwellSampling Level
As the render calculates you will see the image output get less and less noisy and the Sampling Level (SL) increase continuously. The SL is a basic measure of quality, the higher it is the less noise the render will have. A few key points regarding SL:
It is important to understand that there is no fixed SL number to get an acceptable quality level, because it depends entirely on the scene. Some scenes can be completely noise-free at SL 8 or even earlier, while others may need to get to SL 16 or higher. As a general rule an exterior scene will render much quicker than an interior scene because most of the lighting in an interior will be indirect and there are many more light bounces to calculate.
Each new SL takes approximately twice as long to reach as the previous one. If it took 15 minutes to go from SL 4 to SL 5, it will take about 30 minutes to go from SL 5 to SL 6.
It is uncommon needing to render beyond SL 19 - 20.
I guess it has the same rule like ive often read here , that if your render isnt clear at x samples you wont see a huge change until 2x.
Thought i should added it here since you rework the statistics, in case you wanted to check it out too
This might actually be a good idea. I'm guessing Maxwell's SL scales by powers of 2 (ex, sample level 8 means 2^8 samples per pixel)...that's actually kind of a useful thing. Regardless of how the Next Limit guys actually coded theirs, I'm wondering if we should consider switching samples to some kind of exponential measurement. Powers of two could be nice since that means low discrepancy always finishes a run at a "round number" of quality. The main issue here is that maybe a "quality measure" which has a direct/linear relationship with the number of samples on film isn't such a great idea. After all, adding 100 samples to a film with only 10 samples is going to have a huge effect. Adding 100 samples to a film that already has 10,000 isn't going to do anything noticeable at all.
So perhaps have a quality measure that is some kind of exponent? Powers of 2 perhaps? That would give us a wide range of values that doesn't leave silly-small numbers at s/px used for things like previews or animations (like powers of 10 would). Wondering if we should just refer to these as "passes" to give some consistency with SPPM. (and Cycles, which uses 1 pass = 1 sample/pixel)
Also, the carbonflux unit works fairly well with powers of 2, as 2^13.37 happens to be about 10000
.....and while we are on this train of though, which do we list efficiency as a percentage? Lux usually operates with path-tracing algorithms, which pretty much always turn in eff percentages way over 100. Why not just use a decimal? So efficiency is, say, 5.32 instead of 532%?