Here's a small comparison. Can you guys tell the difference, and which one is best (if even)? Might be a trick question....
Took me a minute...
Screenshot_189.jpg
Jokes aside, I'm really not sure!
I copied both images into Photoshop as layers and enabled and disabled the upper one to maybe spot a difference. On and off for quite some time. I didn't find anything...
I won't keep you in utter suspension any longer. Thanks guys, I know enough.
And now, don't say, I told you so ;)
I thought there might be tiny differences in the darks of the shadows but definitively not enough to go for the higher AA and much longer render time.
The effect of the higher AA is nought here.
CHeers, Klaus
Cool!! Good to know!
At that resolution, if you're hoping to see us see a difference in AA resolution based on a pixel size, we won't. Lol Could probably even go lower AA wise. Image is just too small vs pixel threshold size.
You also save as a jpeg which will change all the noise/construction of the image. Should be a PNG.
Take a look at a difference. Cause of compression, whole image is different on a pixel level. Cause jpeg is going to change all the data on a per-pixel level with compression, and it's not uniform one go to another, so side by side will yield different results on each half. Biggest change seems to be boundaries of shadowed areas.
We need to see a much larger image where the pixel noise threshold can be seen at a pixel level.
But to sum up, at that size, even with different AA, the difference couldn't really be seen so small I think, plus with how AA works, I think the construction of pixels will be random each time as it decides paths to take on a per-pixel basis. Think like noise, almost.
Yeah, jpg does that indeed. But what I merely wanted to find out for myself is whether I needed the almost double render time for an image to be printed in a book or brochure, or even on a panel at 100dpi, where it will be decreased in actual size. This was just a small crop (the whole thing will be around 6000x4000px), so it would take many hours more. In my opinion, it's not worth it.
If you look very carefully, there is a eeniemienietiny difference, but I mean, nobody is going to look that way. That's all.
But I of course thank you for your scrutiny :)
It probably isn't. I imagine there will be an inherent grain of sorts with the print anyway that seems to catch attention in fine detail anyway that will probably make any low level stuff anyway. At least attention to it. Heck even more noise may actually look better on print. I notice super crisp images don't really flow well on paper. I dunno, maybe just me.
Quote from: Dune on May 06, 2022, 02:05:27 AM...so it would take many hours more. In my opinion, it's not worth it.
I totally agree!!!
Besides it's something to consider for me in the future as well. For a final image (1920X1080) I usually render at 3K with MPD/AA of 0.8/9. Maybe this is way too much. I'll check that. Thanks for testing, Ulco!
Quote from: Hannes on May 05, 2022, 03:13:14 AMI copied both images into Photoshop as layers and enabled and disabled the upper one to maybe spot a difference. On and off for quite some time. I didn't find anything...
Ah - didn't spot WAS's post - got there before me :) - but I don't think his images were quite lined up
Here's the result, if you download this and zoom in you can just about see the pixel difference, but that could also be the jpeg compression.
It would be interesting to see the difference in AA if it was a sequence with an animated camera.
Psl-test-23_difference.png
Quote from: WAS on May 06, 2022, 02:36:26 AMIt probably isn't. I imagine there will be an inherent grain of sorts with the print anyway that seems to catch attention in fine detail anyway that will probably make any low level stuff anyway. At least attention to it. Heck even more noise may actually look better on print. I notice super crisp images don't really flow well on paper. I dunno, maybe just me.
It's definitely something to experiment with.
On a slightly related note, it's interesting to see what they are doing in cinema releases by shooting digital and transferring to film to "soften" the images:
https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/
They did that on Dune and The Batman which I just finished working on.
This is not related to Dunes renders, but I sometimes feel vegetation renders in Terragen look a bit too crisp, still looking for the best solution to get camera aberrations in an image.
Interesting, thanks for the link.
Quote from: digitalguru on May 06, 2022, 07:00:08 AMQuote from: WAS on May 06, 2022, 02:36:26 AMIt probably isn't. I imagine there will be an inherent grain of sorts with the print anyway that seems to catch attention in fine detail anyway that will probably make any low level stuff anyway. At least attention to it. Heck even more noise may actually look better on print. I notice super crisp images don't really flow well on paper. I dunno, maybe just me.
It's definitely something to experiment with.
On a slightly related note, it's interesting to see what they are doing in cinema releases by shooting digital and transferring to film to "soften" the images:
https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/
They did that on Dune and The Batman which I just finished working on.
This is not related to Dunes renders, but I sometimes feel vegetation renders in Terragen look a bit too crisp, still looking for the best solution to get camera aberrations in an image.
That is really neat, and totally something I would be interested in. The final result was definitely worth it in my opinion. I was actually wondering why the film had this "look" beyond just the color grading.