This is gold. Thank you very much. Strangely, the ADD mode on my computer renders faster than the REPLACE mode. Not sure what I'm missing? And even with the AO distance of 100cm, it still looks good, provided we lower the exposure to compensate for the brightness.
Would love to know more about your settings! Getting a speed up with ADD is certainly an interesting result, but it might make sense in some cases. One that we initially didn't think of until after publishing is that you can set the light paths for cycles to have a low number of diffuse bounces to save render time, and then use ADD to make up for the lack of brightness that you inevitably get when you use less bounces for diffuse. Though to be honest, from your comment, it sounds like you might have done something different to that! We'd love to know more!
Also forgot, the AO distance might depend on the scale of your scene. Blender uses its own units of measurement, but you can apply a standard measurement scale or unit. We've not played with this extensively, but in the video James did warn that, since the AO distance is given in cm, this may affect you differently if you have used a scale in your scene that is different. Definitely something to look at, though our take on this is, we need to test to see if this is even a thing. Might explain your difference in effect of AO distance if true though!
@@Crowdrender Also reduces noises or reduces the need of high samples values. I'm currently rendering 600 frames of full HD animation using the ADD method. I get around 11 seconds rendering time per frame (RTX 3070). I will try to do the same 600 frames after this but using REPLACE.
@@Crowdrender I just rendered 600 frames of animation using both methods. I used diffuse bounce = 3, for both ADD and REPLACE methods. Set the REPLACE mode to kick in after the third bounce. I can assure you that ADD is faster, around 11 sec, but looks more pale (less color bouncing around). REPLACE is slower, around 15 secs, but tends to provide more saturation (color bouncing effect). I think I'll stick with the ADD method for now for animation, and use REPLACE for still images.
@@ExposeStudioID Interesting! So, it would appear that ADD helps in some way after all. In our test, REPLACE was likely quicker because we left the diffuse bounces set to 12 for the path tracing, but restricted the bounces rendered using REPLACE to 2. That was likely the saving there. Its very interesting that having the same number of bounces, but using ADD, results in a time saving. May do a follow up test and a short additional video if its interesting, it does make sense though, FGI is supposed to be used to speed up rendering, so its ADD mode seemed pretty redundant when it was slower during out test. Stay tuned!
Nicely explained. Thank you!
You're most welcome 🙏
Is there music playing in the BG?
To answer my own question: Yes, there is.
But my next question is:
WHY is there music playing in the BG?
This is gold. Thank you very much. Strangely, the ADD mode on my computer renders faster than the REPLACE mode. Not sure what I'm missing? And even with the AO distance of 100cm, it still looks good, provided we lower the exposure to compensate for the brightness.
Would love to know more about your settings! Getting a speed up with ADD is certainly an interesting result, but it might make sense in some cases. One that we initially didn't think of until after publishing is that you can set the light paths for cycles to have a low number of diffuse bounces to save render time, and then use ADD to make up for the lack of brightness that you inevitably get when you use less bounces for diffuse.
Though to be honest, from your comment, it sounds like you might have done something different to that! We'd love to know more!
Also forgot, the AO distance might depend on the scale of your scene. Blender uses its own units of measurement, but you can apply a standard measurement scale or unit. We've not played with this extensively, but in the video James did warn that, since the AO distance is given in cm, this may affect you differently if you have used a scale in your scene that is different.
Definitely something to look at, though our take on this is, we need to test to see if this is even a thing. Might explain your difference in effect of AO distance if true though!
@@Crowdrender Also reduces noises or reduces the need of high samples values. I'm currently rendering 600 frames of full HD animation using the ADD method. I get around 11 seconds rendering time per frame (RTX 3070). I will try to do the same 600 frames after this but using REPLACE.
@@Crowdrender I just rendered 600 frames of animation using both methods. I used diffuse bounce = 3, for both ADD and REPLACE methods. Set the REPLACE mode to kick in after the third bounce. I can assure you that ADD is faster, around 11 sec, but looks more pale (less color bouncing around). REPLACE is slower, around 15 secs, but tends to provide more saturation (color bouncing effect). I think I'll stick with the ADD method for now for animation, and use REPLACE for still images.
@@ExposeStudioID Interesting! So, it would appear that ADD helps in some way after all. In our test, REPLACE was likely quicker because we left the diffuse bounces set to 12 for the path tracing, but restricted the bounces rendered using REPLACE to 2. That was likely the saving there.
Its very interesting that having the same number of bounces, but using ADD, results in a time saving. May do a follow up test and a short additional video if its interesting, it does make sense though, FGI is supposed to be used to speed up rendering, so its ADD mode seemed pretty redundant when it was slower during out test.
Stay tuned!
👍👍