Jump to content


Sammy

Standard vs Physical Render

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I've been using both physical render and standard render for a while now, my only purpose for physical render is actually only for DOF (and motion blur but rarely use that cause of extreme rendertimes)

And i know you can do DOF in standard render only the logic on how that works escapes me everytime, it's not physically accurate and compared to physicals DOF it's just sh** quality, the only reason it really is still worth using is cause it gives a doable DOF with (compared to physical) a very short rendertime.

also i'ts been said physical can render faster with renderheavy aspects in your scene i.e. blurry refl. area shadows, caustics, SSS.

 

So everything i "do" know aside, what i'm really wondering is what the difference in pure quality is between these 2 render engines

so i'm talking: DOF turned off, Motion Blur turned off, and not focusing on the renderspeed.
quality wise.. what is the actual difference that is left between Physical and Standard?
cause as far as i know physical only serves for the, motion blur, DOF and potentially faster render times (depending on the scene content)

It might be a little narrow minded, but that's just what i know and i would like to know if we're not beating around the bush and coming down to the facts, does it serve for anything else?

i've heard physical also better physically accurate render results... only that sounds to vague for me to add a couple hours of rendertime.
and yes, i have seen the tutorial about the guy explaining physical several times, for it seems to be the only tutorial about physical explaining alot.

So if the physically accurate thing is true, i'm very curious about what it improves in quality, or maybe something else i don't know.

The only thing I'm noticing here is that the physical render increased shadow quality, also looks like the rotten banana's specular height/intensity/strenght has decreased slightly.

Standard.png Standard Render  GI + AO
Physical.png Physical Render GI + AO

Thank you in advance! <3

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sammy said:

what i'm really wondering is what the difference in pure quality is between these 2 render engines

well ...you can't have a big difference in each scenario , but generally the deference will be more obvious with transparency and reflections .

the transparency is calculated very differently with the physical renderer , and you can notice this with absorption settings (just switching the renderer will change the result ) . 

and even the physical renderer don't give you physical result , to achieve semi-unbiased render you will have to use the reflectance channel only , which will slow down the render , but in the other hand will give caustics and other complex effects for free and super fast compared to the other methods 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sammy said:

It might be a little narrow minded, but that's just what i know and i would like to know if we're not beating around the bush and coming down to the facts, does it serve for anything else?

Yes. Standard Render is noticeably faster on some scenes and renders hair much more nicely than Physical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • Ahh cool, thanx guys i was not aware of these facts yet.
    apparently this is something to be used for very specific scenes if you don't want to waste it's use.

    I also forgot to add that physical render allows a variety of settings to a camera's  physical tab like: lens distortions, vignette and chromatic abberation.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I'm using just Physical render for all my work, it's an approvement over standard render engine in many ways, altough it could be little faster in some situations, but waiting for that ProRender engine, I believe we will get quality and speed ;).

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • Yeah that's the thing i use it for all my work too, but it's just too slow to go crazy with effects.
    i really gotta take it easy on my DOF, even then i'm gonna have to face the face that my final render will have noise because i can't outsample the quality DOF needs sometimes, you'll end up putting down numbers like "0,001% in shading error threshold to get your DOF tight.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Just to chime in. As noted above, with advanced materials that requires the heavy use of reflectance, Physical seems to be the way to go. 

    I'm just wondering, is there a difference of GI between using Standard Renderer and Physical Renderer? I don't have a detailed findings, but recently, I found Physical's GI much more pleasing. Or maybe it is just me. 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    8 minutes ago, bentraje said:

    Just to chime in. As noted above, with advanced materials that requires the heavy use of reflectance, Physical seems to be the way to go. 

    I'm just wondering, is there a difference of GI between using Standard Renderer and Physical Renderer? I don't have a detailed findings, but recently, I found Physical's GI much more pleasing. Or maybe it is just me. 

    maybe can you share an example of that ? 

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    ^Apparently, I have no record of it. By recently, I meant a month ago or so. I'll try to replicate it if possible, but then again maybe it was just me. 

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest SPOD

    I've been rendering out a camera rotating around a lit object in studio lighting and the standard renderer does way more subtle and realistic shadowing with GI & AO on than the physical.  I've only used Physical but the standard just has better results.  It's a bit slower though, which is a bummer.

     

    Here are two examples, the only difference is that I turned it over from standard to physical, left all the GI & AO settings as they were.

     

    Standard then physical.  

     

    I was of the understanding Physical dealt with this stuff better?

     

    standard.png

    physical.png

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    8 minutes ago, SPOD said:

    Here are two examples, the only difference is that I turned it over from standard to physical, left all the GI & AO settings as they were.

    That'll be the problem then ;) Your Physical settings were way too low, as we can tell from the grain and lack of detail in the shadows.

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×