4 ms·
You’re attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a contrived corner case example. All you have to do is wait a little longer for more specular samples. The que
by dahart 7y ago
You’re attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a contrived corner case example. All you have to do is wait a little longer for more specular samples. The question is whether you wait for less time with denoising than without to get a pretty good preview, and the answer is yes. Many artists are really happy with denoising, and would rather have it than not, regardless of whether the processor is a GPU or CPU.
- fxtentacle 7y agoWell I had to pick an example to illustrate my grief with denoising, but the problems are not limited to my example. In general, if you take an AI to replace your noisy image with a noise free but plausible alternative, you should be aware that you're replacing content, so that this can change what you see to the point where it is not representative of the fully converged image anymore.
- dahart 7y agoIn general, it's still true that denoising a higher quality input will yield a higher quality (closer to resolved) output, so all you have to do is wait a little longer. Denoising is typically applied in interactive environments where you don't get a static result, you get a new denoised result that includes more samples every frame. Undersampling is easy to spot because the denoised image jumps a lot every frame. Once it stops moving a lot, you can have a lot more confidence. So the problem you're citing is not one that you're stuck with, and it's not a problem in practice.