There are algorithms:
Two sorts of them:
1) biased - loss in quality, but for many "good enough" (There also are Hybrid renderers, which are somewhere in between Biased and unbiased renderers)
2) Quantum Computers - They'll be able to render several possible light-paths simultaneously. - With a single core!
(8 QuBit -> 256 Possible ways at ONCE)
Maybe there are others, but these are, which I'm aware of.
WOW
I guess I was thinking of a really complicated scene when I said it may not clear up with all of the time in the world. Even if it did it is too long eh? Even if it did in a month that is too long in my opinion. How about using a computer that is 4 years old....like mine? 
(heheh I know my old computer is my fault)
You have seen my Blender Suzanne monkey skin test @ 19,000 spp? Imagine that in a complicated scene rendered at 1900x1200. Link: http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/fo ... php?t=3459 Ono does know that the skin design is slow.
Here is a link to an excellent scene by Furumaru (Furumaru does good scenes) rendered in the dark with lights. Around 7000spp at a good size resolution. Link: http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/fo ... php?t=3297
To be looking at this for grain: You can still see some grain on the floor especially around the top right by the light beam that goes off into the darkness. Also it appears that the light on the floor by the balls is grainy and so is the light that is shown on the ball reflection itself. While this is a great scene I would not consider it photorealistic (which I guess this very much depends on a person's opinion) yet until the light clears up more. Also I am not sure what quality this image was saved at. (and if saving to a lower quality image may have caused a loss in quality)
So maybe that gives another idea of how long it may take to clear up a scene. But still time to clear is very dependant on design of scene and materials used. (and computer speed)
(heheh I know my old computer is my fault)You have seen my Blender Suzanne monkey skin test @ 19,000 spp? Imagine that in a complicated scene rendered at 1900x1200. Link: http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/fo ... php?t=3459 Ono does know that the skin design is slow.
Here is a link to an excellent scene by Furumaru (Furumaru does good scenes) rendered in the dark with lights. Around 7000spp at a good size resolution. Link: http://www.indigorenderer.com/joomla/fo ... php?t=3297
To be looking at this for grain: You can still see some grain on the floor especially around the top right by the light beam that goes off into the darkness. Also it appears that the light on the floor by the balls is grainy and so is the light that is shown on the ball reflection itself. While this is a great scene I would not consider it photorealistic (which I guess this very much depends on a person's opinion) yet until the light clears up more. Also I am not sure what quality this image was saved at. (and if saving to a lower quality image may have caused a loss in quality)
So maybe that gives another idea of how long it may take to clear up a scene. But still time to clear is very dependant on design of scene and materials used. (and computer speed)
Content contained in my posts is for informational purposes only and is used at your own risk.
yeah, this isn't noisefree enough to fool everyone's eyes... Though, untrained eyes simply don't see it 
- Indigo is less photo realistic for Indigo users than for the average person. I guess, skilled photographs will also spot the noise... and people who use other unbiased renders... All the others wouldn't see it. Immediately at least... Some never, when they wouldn't get told ^^
Though, at a certain amount of noise (not the case in that render), it could be considered as camera noise...
Oh, and there where some images, which where SO clean, that they already didn't look photo realistic! They looked like biased CG.... (not from realism but from clearness)
- Indigo is less photo realistic for Indigo users than for the average person. I guess, skilled photographs will also spot the noise... and people who use other unbiased renders... All the others wouldn't see it. Immediately at least... Some never, when they wouldn't get told ^^Though, at a certain amount of noise (not the case in that render), it could be considered as camera noise...
Oh, and there where some images, which where SO clean, that they already didn't look photo realistic! They looked like biased CG.... (not from realism but from clearness)
The eye is used to a certain amount of noise.
Without that, the thing doesn't look right any more. The eye doesn't think, it's real, either, as the image stays flat... THAT's a big problem for CG art ^^
If the whole thing is dynamic, the eye misses that part and doesn't think of an illusion, again, though... So, animations fool more than stills...
Without that, the thing doesn't look right any more. The eye doesn't think, it's real, either, as the image stays flat... THAT's a big problem for CG art ^^
If the whole thing is dynamic, the eye misses that part and doesn't think of an illusion, again, though... So, animations fool more than stills...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests