If have to encapsulate what this is in a circle, it would be (optimization of long and large tasks that require patience). This is a great resource that mainly helps with the efficiency of pixels, and it is very useful for saving time by optimizing in this way. Thank you very much, briefly I will tell you that I checked it and it is very effective for me!!
In comparison the Arnold renders this same scene with same resolution in about 11s noise free on rtx4090 but the transmission looks better on Arnold. In other scenes I tested recently, Arnold's bump is simply superior, every single material I tried looks more realistic, the metal reflections are just better, renders are considerably sharper, shadows more defined etc etc. I am trying really hard to love and fully switch to Karma but every time I compare it with Arnold I decline this idea. Karma is really great and fast with volumes though and has better integration with Solaris.
Probably you're right, but.. 1) karma is part of Houdini. You don't need to pay +400$ per year for license.. 2) if you don't have RTX4090 - gpu render will be "little" problem for some scenes with Arnold, if it bigger than just some one-object presentation. Probably, xpu better for speed/optimization? As I know, Arnold "love" GPU memory:) 3) just interesting for compare two similar scenes, made by Karma and Arnold - if you will not know, where every image was made, are you sure in right answer?:) Just curious. I saw some render comparisons between octane and cycles and.. Almost no differences if be honest:) Only if you love do pixel-hunting.
@@knopkodavik 1) yes, I agree. 2) might be, I am not sure but I never had problem with GPU memory on 4090 and 3080ti. I am not dealing with super huge scenes though 3) for sure not 100%. Can you make great artwork with any render engine? Absolutely! However if I compare 2 render engines side by side I can usually see quite many differences and for the same effort (same lights, same textures, same geometry) if one render engine gives me better results than other one why not choose the better one? Cycles vs Octane are you talking about this video? czcams.com/video/eFY1HeymUU4/video.htmlsi=ilx95mshIHJKNaVW&t=401 I see quite some differences and here I would definitely choose the Octane. Floor looks better, metal is more realistic, background wall is more defined.
I was thinking of switching to karma from Arnold. Because of firefly noises on metal surfaces or whatever reflecting textures and shaders. So difficult to managing them. But you've just destroyed my plan!
Great vidoe! thanks for sharing! Im curious, dont you think that maybe you could reduce the minimal samples around 128 because some areas of that image might not need much more, and let karma decide when to use the max sample ? i think you might have ended with a similar quality and faster render time, but im just guessing
Adaptive sampling is meant to reduce render times while maintaining a noise free image. Some areas of images do need less samples to fully converge. I was trying to demonstrate the use of it while using a noise free shadow area as a benchmark.
Do you have any documentation link or anything that says that? It would seem odd that they would default xpu samples to 128 when that's not an even square
I see this one. I don't know why they would be disappearing. I haven't gotten anything saying a comment is being removed or held or anything. Are you posting a link by chance? Maybe it's not liking that if that's the case
@@InsideTheMindSpace Aah that IS the case.... "Karma User Guide Reducing noise: Karma XPU" - it's a sidefx site linke - type that in a search engine, look for the highlighted green text box
So, is it correct to say, that this technique is more valuable when you render an image that doesnt need uniform amount of sampling? Meaning one part of the image is more important then others and the adaptive sampling takes that into account...
No image really ever requires uniform sampling. Adaptive sampling just allows the engine to determine where samples are and are not needed. It can be valuable to use in every render
If have to encapsulate what this is in a circle, it would be (optimization of long and large tasks that require patience). This is a great resource that mainly helps with the efficiency of pixels, and it is very useful for saving time by optimizing in this way. Thank you very much, briefly I will tell you that I checked it and it is very effective for me!!
great tutorial, thanks fro sharing!
Thanks ❤
cut my gpu suffering in half, thanks!
In comparison the Arnold renders this same scene with same resolution in about 11s noise free on rtx4090 but the transmission looks better on Arnold. In other scenes I tested recently, Arnold's bump is simply superior, every single material I tried looks more realistic, the metal reflections are just better, renders are considerably sharper, shadows more defined etc etc. I am trying really hard to love and fully switch to Karma but every time I compare it with Arnold I decline this idea. Karma is really great and fast with volumes though and has better integration with Solaris.
Probably you're right, but..
1) karma is part of Houdini. You don't need to pay +400$ per year for license..
2) if you don't have RTX4090 - gpu render will be "little" problem for some scenes with Arnold, if it bigger than just some one-object presentation. Probably, xpu better for speed/optimization? As I know, Arnold "love" GPU memory:)
3) just interesting for compare two similar scenes, made by Karma and Arnold - if you will not know, where every image was made, are you sure in right answer?:) Just curious. I saw some render comparisons between octane and cycles and.. Almost no differences if be honest:) Only if you love do pixel-hunting.
@knopkodavik render engine doesn't make that big of a difference between modern render engines. A good artist will make good work no matter the engine
@@knopkodavik 1) yes, I agree.
2) might be, I am not sure but I never had problem with GPU memory on 4090 and 3080ti. I am not dealing with super huge scenes though
3) for sure not 100%. Can you make great artwork with any render engine? Absolutely! However if I compare 2 render engines side by side I can usually see quite many differences and for the same effort (same lights, same textures, same geometry) if one render engine gives me better results than other one why not choose the better one?
Cycles vs Octane are you talking about this video? czcams.com/video/eFY1HeymUU4/video.htmlsi=ilx95mshIHJKNaVW&t=401 I see quite some differences and here I would definitely choose the Octane. Floor looks better, metal is more realistic, background wall is more defined.
I was thinking of switching to karma from Arnold. Because of firefly noises on metal surfaces or whatever reflecting textures and shaders. So difficult to managing them. But you've just destroyed my plan!
That's how I feel with octane. The renders just look better.... I don't know exactly what it is but I can unsee it. I'm sure Arnold is even better.
Great vidoe! thanks for sharing!
Im curious, dont you think that maybe you could reduce the minimal samples around 128 because some areas of that image might not need much more, and let karma decide when to use the max sample ? i think you might have ended with a similar quality and faster render time, but im just guessing
Adaptive sampling is meant to reduce render times while maintaining a noise free image. Some areas of images do need less samples to fully converge. I was trying to demonstrate the use of it while using a noise free shadow area as a benchmark.
Great vid. Afaik path traced samples should be squares, not geometric sequence - a-la mantra's 5x5 6x6 etc.. not 4 8 16 32
Do you have any documentation link or anything that says that? It would seem odd that they would default xpu samples to 128 when that's not an even square
@@InsideTheMindSpace I've replied to this twice now and my replies have both disappeared
I see this one. I don't know why they would be disappearing. I haven't gotten anything saying a comment is being removed or held or anything. Are you posting a link by chance? Maybe it's not liking that if that's the case
@@InsideTheMindSpace Aah that IS the case.... "Karma User Guide Reducing noise: Karma XPU" - it's a sidefx site linke - type that in a search engine, look for the highlighted green text box
So, is it correct to say, that this technique is more valuable when you render an image that doesnt need uniform amount of sampling? Meaning one part of the image is more important then others and the adaptive sampling takes that into account...
No image really ever requires uniform sampling. Adaptive sampling just allows the engine to determine where samples are and are not needed. It can be valuable to use in every render
@@InsideTheMindSpace that makes total sense!
annyone know how to set up so the scene only subdivides once instead of every frame ?
have you find anything similar to "arnold Min pixel width" in karma? it helps fur to appear more anti aliasing
I have not but I haven't really looked for something like that