What is Reddit's opinion of
LuxCoreRender?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ LuxCoreRender website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
21 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
The #1 way to make bling "bling" is the love of caustics, sprayed liberally like spray paint, and animated for all the sparkles... nice slow rot/pan on a felt pad. Mmmm.
The downside is the huge rendertime increase and the likelihood of bad fireflies and stray photons if you don't control it. A separate cycles pass with some very tiny pinlight(s) with both reflective and refractive caustics enabled could be nommy nommy as it is. You'll want (need) a ton of SPP and if you don't do a separate render pass just for the caustics and then composite it, you're in for a many-hours render, jacking the samples ludicrously high. (max out each of the bounces for each pass to the particular need)
Also from the scene side, you can help it along, if you just made a drill hole to drop the stone in, even if you have the IoR set to diamond or zirconia, 2.4-ish, the light can't come back up unless you're modeled a realistic gemstone cut; you could always make the inside of the mount hollow so all the light goes through before bouncing up, or you could make a perfect mirror texture underneath in the mount...
Finally if you really want the good stuff, Jewelry and watches and... well, everything sparkly actually, looks fantastic in luxcore. But if you don't have some CUDAs/OpenCLs handy or just render slave or 3, you need to be a very patient. There's no comparison when it comes to caustics and dispersion from a free metropolis light transport implementation, but it's the absolutely slowest renderer going. Go figure. https://luxcorerender.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/polished_ring.jpg
If you want good caustics then try lux render. The Luxcore addon lets you work with Blender easily. You can even do that Pink Floyd prism split thing.How cool is that!
No, it's purely a CPU-based renderer, mostly for academic purposes. However, most of the core components and a couple of the integrators can be implemented on the GPU.
You should check out LuxCore (formerly LuxRender), which was originally based off of PBRTv1, and includes GPU acceleration.
Lux is here: https://luxcorerender.org
I'm not sure what all the API options are for these, but I know they can all be used with Blender's python API.
Definitely nothing wrong with have more options though!
Blender will fit, why not? It's just a general-purpose modeling program and you have to figure out the workflow for jewelry by yourself. Of course you will lose in speed, especially at the beginning. But you can live with it I suppose.
The only problem will be the render engine imo. Cycles still don't work well with caustics and dispersion. Instead of Cycles you can choose something else like LuxCore(free) or Octane(subscription) or even Pixar render(free for non commercial).
Check this out: https://luxcorerender.org/gallery/
I don't want to bring you down or anything. But that fringing in the left sphere isn't how light would behave. Thats more a rendering artifact than proper behaviour of light. If it was true what you claim, you would see rainbow caustics on the ground plane for all three objects. They would not be very faint since your scene is blown out.
I encourage you to work on it. I do highly doubt you will get realistic effects, since cycles is a unidirectional path tracer (https://www.cycles-renderer.org/about/) Maybe check out LuxCoreRender (https://luxcorerender.org/) its closer to what you would like to achive.
I've had some experience with software that does EM wave propagation. It can take a while even for simple geometries. One that is industry standard is called Meep (its free and can do much more, But not a render engine), but it UI is through code (Python/Scheme).
It looks like some sort of voronoi pattern, check your texture settings and see if you have anything extra attached.
Nice render though, I don't see LuxRender around here too often. I would probably render the bathroom with the lights on and add some amenities to make the scene feel less empty and hollow. Take some inspiration from their gallery, especially the interiors.
No problem dude! And yeah, in Cycles you actually should never leave them checked because they slow things down and need a lot of samples to clean up the effect. So if you are planning on rendering complex glass materials, there are other free render engines that are good at dealing with caustics, as I said before. Just for reference, Here is one :)
I watched this tutorial and then messed around with it a bit. You can download it here for free and install it as an add-on in blender. I'm not that experienced in it yet but it seems to be way better and rendering glass and especially caustics than cycles.
I don't think this is possible in cycles or eevee, the tightest spot light you can make is 1 degree, you can create a coherent light source using the luxcore renderer with a laser area light though.
LuxCore is a raytracing rendering software like Cycles, but focuses more on caustics and refraction.
You can install it like any other add-on.
Here is the link to their website, if you are interested in trying out for yourself
I'm starting to sound obsessed because I often say it, but for glass/diamonds/etc try use LuxCore render. All the buzz in diamonds is caustics and dispersion in the material, and cycles not really capable doing that. Check out swans in the gallery
Try LuxCore, i think it must work with gpu(i have mac but it’s 2012). Look at the gallery here, photorealism all the way. https://luxcorerender.org/
But if you wanna try it get latest build here: https://github.com/LuxCoreRender/BlendLuxCore/releases/tag/latest
But Blender must work with AMD cards via OpenCL API, isn’t it? Check out your setting, maybe you need to select your card or smth.
Anyway, ProRender is okay but i would suggest you to try LuxCore for rendering. It may look strange at first glance and not as developed as cycles(cycles have unbeatable integration), but this thing is great and have small nice community for sorting things out. But ofc you will need to learn it, because LC is different.
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration
if you wanted to be sure you'd maybe test it with "empirically" with a physically based renderer. i dont think anything stops you from throwing a model of a ton of microscopic stuff in there if your computer can handle it.
If that's the only reason you're using it, that's because octane has a render mode called "Direct" that only traces direct lights in the scene and provides an approximation of the result. You could just as easily achieve the same thing by using eevee to pre-vis your creations instead of cycles in this case, at a much faster speed I might add. I also don't mean to pull you in 3 different directions at once, but if your attention to octane has been garnered by it's quality, then I might direct your attention to LuxRender, as it's open source, has just-as-good if not better quality than octane, and doesn't gimp itself to only be able to use one GPU if you don't pay tons of cash for the subscription or perpetual license.
The boxy, and in one case metallic, cars, give this away as possibly being a 3D render. It could have been drawn, though, or maybe even drawn based on a 3D render. The person looks very realistic, like clipart, so as a whole, this could have used a lot of techniques. Both the car material, the lights, and the chromatic aberration remind me of my favourite rendering engine, LuxCore.
One can find LuxCoreRender at https://luxcorerender.org/ ^_^ !
I was about to say that it only works in Blender 2.7, but it looks like they finally added support for Blender 2.8 :D ! That means that I can finally upgrade Blender, and that I can recommend it to you without any caveats!
Actually, luxrender is a progressive renderer too. It has a pretty beefy CPU renderer mode called "BiDir" which can render notoriously hard scenes to render (like indirect lighting bouncing through a glass to create caustics). I'm not sure how fast it would be compared to Corona, but if you have dual Xeons then I would assume it'd be pretty fast. It excels at indoor scenes and is actually rather speedy from the benchmarks I've seen. Plus you can change the influence of light sources after the render is finished too meaning that if you didn't like say, a lamp in the corner you could just turn it off after the render is finished. (I've not yet figured this out on 2.8, but I know you can do it.) Not to say that Corona doesn't do a good job, in fact I'd say it looks pretty damn tempting to also try by your render here. But you should definitely give it a shot sometime. I've been playing with it and looking at their gallery and such, some of these results are pretty stunning. Just take a look at the stuff nearer to the bottom. This is an engine designed for extremely accurate light transport.