SSmolak wrote:but unfortunately this not help for creating the same image look that offer another renderer because developers using the same technical data implemented them little different.
Precisely.
I believe Corona Renderer (still) has its own custom internal color pipeline, merely a wider Gamut (rendering/working color space).
Matter of fact, not even the Autodesk Standard surface is implemented identically in some renderers. Although the dissimilarities are too subtle to be qualified as evident.
SSmolak wrote:Because these renderers oriented for exteriors have great built-in calibrated settings where you can create simple materials, using built-in light system, pressing render and excellent, great pleasure for eye image is done. In Octane to achieve the same you must tweaking. People are lazy in nature.
If people would thoroughly read the links Ive shared numerous times, they would have noticed the recommendations echoing your "findings".
"Calibration" would be a misnomer subject to avoidance.
SSmolak wrote:1. Main problem in Octane are materials. They are strange compared to Corona because Octane color brightness on 80% are the same that Corona use on 50%. When you want more photons to be pushed out and lighting darker areas you must use 15-35% more material brightness for that here. The same situation is for color saturation. Octane needs 5-15% more saturated color for create the same color expansion from one material to another. Especially visible in interiors.
Material brightness in Corona from 50% to 100% are the same in Octane using 85-100% values. Something wrong is with calibration here. We have much more possibility to set slider within material darkness than in its brightness.
This isn't a scientific or statistical study. Nobody can be spitting percentage numbers without an in-depth contextualized researched.
It's not about science or physical accuracy, renderers are not scientific tools but an over simplification of the infinitely intricate reality. It takes some advanced mathematics to build a renderer and great efforts to design it in a user-friendly way (non-scientific and practical).
SSmolak wrote:2. Octane Hosek @ Wilkie looks little different in Corona. The most important thing is that Octane Sun Power is way too strong by default. It create too dark shadow areas in relation to Sky power. To make it the same as in Corona it should be set to 0.4 if Sky Power is set to 1. After that we have more brightness in shadow areas with not too much dark shadow.
There is no ground truth default. Sometimes one (sky or sun intensity) needs to out-power the other to achieve a certain look. As long as one or the other or both are higher values than default.
Needless to mention that the kernel settings have to be appropriately set as previously mentioned and showed on the aforementioned links.
SSmolak wrote:I will share these scenes for both Octane and Corona so you can play with it within day or two.
Appreciate the intention, but that won't be necessary as I won't be in a capacity to download any.
To summerize,
• comparisons aren't fairly feasible due to the many diverging factors
• renderers are not equally developed and designed yet closely similar modern technologies
• implementation differs between renderers, although subtle in some cases
• renderers aren't scientific tools but image-making tools
• any modern renderer is capable to achieve "high bounce/GI look" with appropriate shading, lighting and settings values
• exposure principles from photography also applies to rendering, an interior sunny day is expected to illuminate an interior but be relatively blown out at the windows, requiring a Camera Imager exposure adjustement and vice versa.
• a proper and correct color pipeline is mandatory