Octane is an un-biased GPU renderer, i wonder how it stacks they way i understand bias and unbies
is it, that unbias, computer goes through the whole gamut of possible calculations to find the right result per ray traced. Bias, you get to clamp the calculations to a more probable outcome, so the ray calculation won't bother with "everything" just the specific bracket you want to work in, which speeds up things, but sacrifices certainty in accuracy? is that right ? or is that brute force ? On 3 October 2014 19:34, Simon van de Lagemaat <si...@theembassyvfx.com> wrote: > At the cost of a smaller fast memory pool? From what I understand > Redshift slows down significantly when it starts using off board RAM? I > know this is one of the main reasons many other renderers haven't gone to > the GPU yet since cards with decent amounts of memory are still priced far > too high. > > How is Redshift with overall memory usage? i.e. what is the memory > footprint per polygon etc. Also it's biased correct? I > become nauseous when someone mentions that word, is their approach better > than other IC approaches? Similar pitfalls? > > I may try it this weekend on my 780gtx (only 3GB onboard) at home since > it's been getting good PR here. With the type of memory heavy rendering we > do for film and the efficient platform agnostic pipeline friendly workflow > we have with Arnold I don't see it being useful outside some smaller > commercial jobs but I'd like to get a taste of the speed and interactivity. > I suppose if we were a 5 person shop again something like RS would be a > godsend. > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Steven Caron <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> that extra GPU power is a dramatic increase in speed though. >> >> >>
