PDA

View Full Version : Open Image Denoise node for DP Filter



dpont
02-27-2019, 04:17 AM
Hi,

I uploaded the experimental Open Image Denoise node for DP Filter 2018-2019
at the bottom of the DP Filter page,
this is a separate Windows version,
a bit tricky to install,
so it is necessary to see the readme file before,
also because you will download a few dynamic libraries
from the Intel Open Image Denoise Github site.

Denis.

JohnMarchant
02-27-2019, 05:31 AM
Thanks Denis

JohnMarchant
02-27-2019, 06:14 AM
Followed your instructions to the letter and replaced tbb.dll in the Bin folder of LW, LW wont load now because of this, it cant find tbb.dll and yet it is there, so guess im going to have to go back to the safe copy.

My boo boo, copied the wrong file, that will teach me for doing it fast.

raymondtrace
02-27-2019, 04:20 PM
This needs a bit more fanfare. Toot, toot! :)

I'm using an AMD GPU right now so I cannot make use of LW2019's new Nvidia-only GPU denoise option. So this option is appreciated.

No matter how much I tinker with the settings of LW2019's native CPU denoiser, I still cannot get as good a result as this open image denoise node filter. The native CPU denoiser is blurring too much detail. Even with the fewer configuration options, the open image denoise node setup retains the detail. Denoising isn't perfect but this is a big step forward.

Thanks!

OFF
02-27-2019, 08:23 PM
"Cannot load external plug-in file...".
I did everything according to the instructions, I think. renamed and replaced tbb.dll file. copied files from folder lib to folder with plugin.

raymondtrace
02-27-2019, 08:34 PM
I believe there is a mistake in the instructions. You should not be copying anything from the "lib" folder. The "lib" folder does not contain the DLLs listed in the instructions. Copy the DLLs from the "bin" folder instead.

Here's a suggested revision for the instructions, with corrections in bold/red...

Extract these dynamic libraries (from the ....x64.vc14.windows\bin directory)
OpenImageDenoise.dll
tbb.dll
tbbmalloc.dll
in the same directory than the node plugin,

This worked for me.

OFF
02-27-2019, 10:08 PM
Yes, thank you - now it's working.
I have done several tests to compare the work of the built-in GPU denoiser and the Denis plugin. On average, Denis's plug-in works slightly faster (1-10%) and produces cleaner results on open, slightly shaded surfaces. While the built-in denoiser on open surfaces leaves more noise (with blur), but it works better in areas where shadows lie.

I have not yet studied how to work with Albedo and Normal functions.

144248
LW GPU Denoiser 6m11s
144249
DP OpenImageDenoiser 6m5s
144250

dpont
02-28-2019, 12:24 AM
Yes, sorry I fixed the mispelled directory in the readme file,
you need only the dll files.

The raw buffer may be a "based" albedo for this input,
but i.e, if surface has transparency you may need to composite
with other buffers, or create a custom buffer.
Every kind of Normal buffer may work (screen or world)

Reminder: except beauty color each buffer used in the RenderBuffer node must be selected
in the Image Filter node editor panel)

You can get more explanations, on this page:
https://openimagedenoise.github.io/documentation.html

Denis.

raymondtrace
02-28-2019, 06:36 AM
...On average, Denis's plug-in works slightly faster (1-10%) and produces cleaner results on open, slightly shaded surfaces. While the built-in denoiser on open surfaces leaves more noise (with blur), but it works better in areas where shadows lie...

I've observed the same on some basic tests (between the native and DP node filter CPU denoisers). I need to experiment more on various buffers.

rustythe1
02-28-2019, 08:52 AM
Yes, thank you - now it's working.
I have done several tests to compare the work of the built-in GPU denoiser and the Denis plugin. On average, Denis's plug-in works slightly faster (1-10%) and produces cleaner results on open, slightly shaded surfaces. While the built-in denoiser on open surfaces leaves more noise (with blur), but it works better in areas where shadows lie.

I have not yet studied how to work with Albedo and Normal functions.

144248
LW GPU Denoiser 6m11s
144249
DP OpenImageDenoiser 6m5s
144250

you need to do a render with both denoisers off as well, for all people could know the image could be clean before denoising, so you need a base mark to compare the effect

raymondtrace
02-28-2019, 10:37 AM
Here are some very crude example renders using default settings only on the final render buffer. There are a couple faults with this scene. It is unusually dark and there's no detailed geometry that can demonstrate if the noise removal excessively blurs those details.
144263
144264
144265
144266

I initially tested on a better lit client scene and got much better results. I should have tested on something else I could share.

omichon
03-01-2019, 06:30 AM
Denis, maybe I am not looking into the right place, but I can't find any readme file in the archive (OpenImageDenoise_2018_x64.zip).

Lito
03-01-2019, 07:01 AM
Same here, I just downloaded the zip and there is only one .p file inside. No .dll files or subdirectories.

dpont
03-01-2019, 07:18 AM
Fixed, download again.

Denis.

Greatmangaka
03-03-2019, 05:18 AM
Would be nice to see this baby for LW2015 32bit��

gar26lw
03-03-2019, 08:35 AM
Would be nice to see this baby for LW2015 32bit��

yes, it would :) still life in the old x33/64 2015.3 atm :) i think someone said they were looking at pbr shaders for 2015 as well. i guess if they come out it will be a little more useful too.

ernpchan
03-03-2019, 11:52 AM
Does a EULA exist for this plugin? I would like to try it at my job but we require proper EULAs to use software.

Thanks.

peebeearr
03-26-2019, 12:18 AM
I did some experiments and I just can't get the results that the other renderers get (Blender, Luxrender).

Using dp's OIDN filter I render a beauty pass, an Albedo pass (RAW_RGB) and a normal pass. I combine them using all HDR (and linear for output) and the result is less then stellar.... It cleans up tiny areas but most of the picture looks like it has been attacked by some heavy jpg artefacts.

I read the documentation and saw that you need to clamp the albedo pass to max values of 1. Did that but still no difference. I tried all the passes with the binary itself after converting them to PFM's but the result is the same. At least I know that the filter is working as the original ;-)
Also I used the Box anti alias filter without adaptive sampling as I don't know if the Mitchel etc filters (or adaptive sampling) will work with the denoiser.

Here is the result of a simple scene....
144548
Not very clean at all!

Here are the Albedo and Normal buffes I used (Normal buffer shows up wrong as I have normalized it. In the denoiser I use the Float version.)
144549

144552

I get extremely jealouse seeing the results of the other packages.... This has to be able to work with LW?

It is quite crazy if you see how low the quality can be and what the output of the denoiser is!! Amazing!
144553

144554

peebeearr
03-26-2019, 12:24 AM
..... and to be honest... I expected that people around here would be on this thing like flies on sh*t!

There is a lot of complaining about slow rendering with LW and it seems that everyone has had his/her say on the subject.... this could be a very good solution to the problem (it even holds up in animation I have seen!!!) and there is very little people experimenting with this. That quite baffles me.

Anyway, I hope Denis or someone more knowledgeable than me can shed a bit of light on this?

dpont
03-26-2019, 01:35 AM
..... I hope Denis or someone more knowledgeable than me can shed a bit of light on this?

Thanks for testings and comments.
Just a note about linear, make sure you need this conversion.

Could be interesting to test a similar scene, materials, lighting and reconstruction,
with different PBR renderers using MC GI, and then applying the filter

If you can use the binary, you can also report to the Github site,
since this is a recent beta version.

Denis.

OFF
03-26-2019, 01:51 AM
Very interesting tests, thanks. For me, OIDN filter is a chance to return to work my second dual-processor server, which is now idle, since I work with Octane renderer.

gdkeast
03-26-2019, 02:12 AM
Thank you for all the work you do in keeping your amazing plug-ins current and improving them too. Donation of appreciation sent.

peebeearr
03-26-2019, 03:09 AM
Thanks for testings and comments.
Just a note about linear, make sure you need this conversion.

Could be interesting to test a similar scene, materials, lighting and reconstruction,
with different PBR renderers using MC GI, and then applying the filter

If you can use the binary, you can also report to the Github site,
since this is a recent beta version.

Denis.

Hi Denis,

I'll see if I can get Blender up and running and export the scene file to blender and see how that works. To be honest, I don't think anything is wrong with the way I do it but rather the way Lightwave renders for some reason.

I just grabbed some sample pictures (PNG) from a blender forum (https://blenderartists.org/t/intel-open-image-denoise-released-on-github/1144893) and loaded them in LW and ran the OIDN node over it... the results were as expected... pretty good results from such low input values! Smooth surfaces rather than the stuff I got.

Here are some results from the downloaded PNG's in LW.

Source image
144562

Result with only the colour being filtered
144556


Source image
144563

Result with only the colour being filtered
144564


Source image
144559

Result with only the colour being filtered
144560


Then I started to look closely at how Blender outputs low sampled images and I see that it starts with dots in a black void whereas Lightwave (on its lowest setting) barely has any black space in it. Lightwave seems to refine differently than the other renders.

Here is a closeup of a Lightwave render on its lowest settings and a low SPP Blender render:
144561

I cannot get smooth results with native LW renders at all and I wonder why that is.
It would be pretty crap if we can't use this because of the way LW outputs its pixels... but that's hopefully me thinking that the beer glass is ALWAYS half empty:confused:

peebeearr
03-26-2019, 03:33 AM
Here is a compare with the lowest quality settings of Lightwave (everything set to 1 sample and NO AA)

144565

No real smooth surfaces..... and lots of mangled noise that is not because it is JPG compressed. It's there in the original as well.
Raising the quality settings does not provide a better picture.

The OIDN version kinda looks like an oil painting almost :)

peebeearr
03-26-2019, 03:41 AM
Hmmmm, it seems that Filter Radius was the culprit here....

See below results :-)

Raw LW
144566

OIDN version
144567

This is with Albedo and Normal buffers applied... all in all much better results.

I'll keep on testing....

thomascheng
03-26-2019, 06:26 AM
Hmmmm, it seems that Filter Radius was the culprit here....

See below results :-)

Raw LW
144566

OIDN version
144567

This is with Albedo and Normal buffers applied... all in all much better results.

I'll keep on testing....+

This looks amazing. Will this work on a farm?

peebeearr
03-27-2019, 06:45 AM
I have done some more experimenting and found that Anti Aliasing is the most important control to keep detail when you use OIDN. Cranking up rays, reflections/refraction samples is not really adding that much to the clean up process but it does inflict render times.

Also I did NOT use Adaptive AA in my tests... that got me higher render times. Because of the low rays and samples settings you can really crank up anti aliasing and still get good render times.

The most important thing to remember is to turn down Filter Radius in the Camera Properties. That really screws up the OIDN process. Interpolated radiosity is ok to use but in my tests it did not get better quality renders or better render times :rolleyes:

Another important point is to make sure that you don't use bump maps but instead ONLY Normal maps (mapped to the Material node, NOT anywhere else) as the filter uses normals to determine what to filter. (check your normals in the buffer view).

Attached are frames of animations I made with DOF (the USB Speaker scene) and Motion Blur (the Room scene). They're PNG's so you can see the actual amount of artefacting.

Frame 11 - Heavy DOF blur
144586

Frame 35 - smooth result from 1 minute render
144587

Frame 16 - Smooth MB
144584

Frame 105 - Jeez how ugly this room is!!! I could have used a nicer scene....
144585

Conclusion:
I like it a lot! I think it is very useful in cleaning up frames. I have other examples of interior renders only lit by portal lights and to get the noise out of those you need A LOT of samples!! With OIDN, you don't have to and high (4000px+) resolutions are actually very fast! In fact, the higher the resolution the better the filter works... or in other words, the less you notice the slight artefacts the filter creates.
As I only have a Quadro 4000 I can't use the NVIDIA denoise option in 2019... but with this who cares!!!! Wish they made it multithreading though... would scream with my 32 cores!

Although the filter does create some artefacts, in the animations you don't really notice them.

Oh, and I think this should not be a problem in render farms either.....


Suggestion to Denis, can you have the OIDN filter node default to HDR instead of LDR?? Also perhaps an option to have the Albedo map clip at 1 (or 100 or whatever LW uses) I did not see any difference not clipping it but the manual says to clip it and default LW cranks values to over 100% by default. That would probably the most used option. Anyway, you just earned some beers my friend! :beerchug:

Now that everyone knows how it all works I REALLY like to see some awesome interiors rendered at blazing speeds and ultra smooth.

Cheers.

Tobian
03-27-2019, 08:41 AM
Very interesting tests, thanks for experimenting, i should have a look when i get the chance.

dpont
03-27-2019, 09:39 AM
...can you have the OIDN filter node default to HDR instead of LDR?? Also perhaps an option to have the Albedo map clip at 1 (or 100 or whatever LW uses) I did not see any difference not clipping it but the manual says to clip it and default LW cranks values to over 100% by default...

Or you can add a preset (in the Image Filter node editor panel),
including the OIDenoiser node parameters you want
and any king of transformations, compositing you may need for buffers.


Denis.

dpont
03-27-2019, 11:49 AM
I modified the readme file just for the link of the Open Image Denoise,
which has been updated to version 0.8.2, works like previous,
no major change.

https://github.com/OpenImageDenoise/oidn/releases/

Denis.

aperezg
03-27-2019, 02:20 PM
Open Image Denoise, is an excellent solution for LW.
I'm not a programer, not even in mac.
How could I use OIDN in LW 2019 in mac os system?

adk
03-27-2019, 04:23 PM
Thanks for yet another great addition to LW Denis, and peebeearr for those interesting test. The DOF one is very interesting.
I'll need to have a go at this when I get a chance.

peebeearr
03-27-2019, 11:05 PM
Did some more tests with a more or less benchmarked scene....

I found out that OIDN has trouble retaining small details when using Brute Force GI. When not using GI OIDN retains the small details. I have no clue why that is.

What I also discovered is that the more AA you use, the smoother the image. This has nothing to do with how AA'd the buffer passes are (Raw RGB and Normals). Only the beauty pass apparently needs as many AA samples as you can get. This is quite ridiculous as in the sample scenes on the OIDN websites gallery (https://openimagedenoise.github.io/gallery.html), you can get amazing results with very low samples indeed. (Just like in LW only when NOT using GI). In particular the Sponza scene.... very low samples but the OIDN version retains details that are not even visible from the source!

Here are some more samples.

Raw input image [no GI 1m22s]
144594

OIDN result [no GI 1m.43s] - pretty smooth and retains details (look at the ceiling rosette)
144595

OIDN result [Interpolated GI 9m16s] - Very low settings (PR-50, SR-32, MinPS-2, MaxPS-50, AngTol-20, Interpl-50). OIDN did not cope with this....:hey:
144596

OIDN result [Brute Force GI 4m17s] - Looks pretty smooth but most small details are totally gone. The only way to get this back is to crank up AA's a LOT!!
144597

All images are done with a minimum samples AA of 8. No Adaptive, Box filter and Filter Radius set to 0.

I do not know why details are lost when using GI. The filter should work with Monte Carlo GI but for some reason it doesn't... I don't have Octane/Kray... perhaps someone could do some tests with Octane or Kray??

Mind you that this scene is not really optimised.... I used one of the scenes that floated around when LW2018 just came out and everyone was trying to get the lowest render times possible. Check the thread here (https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?155830-LW-2015-vs-LW-2018-Arch-Viz-render-testing&p=1537805&viewfull=1#post1537805).

P.S. Thanks Denis, didn't know about the presets... works like a charm!
P.P.S. all renders are done with OIDN 0.8.2

Asticles
03-28-2019, 02:43 AM
Did some more tests with a more or less benchmarked scene....

I found out that OIDN has trouble retaining small details when using Brute Force GI. When not using GI OIDN retains the small details. I have no clue why that is.

What I also discovered is that the more AA you use, the smoother the image. This has nothing to do with how AA'd the buffer passes are (Raw RGB and Normals). Only the beauty pass apparently needs as many AA samples as you can get. This is quite ridiculous as in the sample scenes on the OIDN websites gallery (https://openimagedenoise.github.io/gallery.html), you can get amazing results with very low samples indeed. (Just like in LW only when NOT using GI). In particular the Sponza scene.... very low samples but the OIDN version retains details that are not even visible from the source!

Here are some more samples.

Raw input image [no GI 1m22s]
144594

OIDN result [no GI 1m.43s] - pretty smooth and retains details (look at the ceiling rosette)
144595

OIDN result [Interpolated GI 9m16s] - Very low settings (PR-50, SR-32, MinPS-2, MaxPS-50, AngTol-20, Interpl-50). OIDN did not cope with this....:hey:
144596

OIDN result [Brute Force GI 4m17s] - Looks pretty smooth but most small details are totally gone. The only way to get this back is to crank up AA's a LOT!!
144597

All images are done with a minimum samples AA of 8. No Adaptive, Box filter and Filter Radius set to 0.

I do not know why details are lost when using GI. The filter should work with Monte Carlo GI but for some reason it doesn't... I don't have Octane/Kray... perhaps someone could do some tests with Octane or Kray??

Mind you that this scene is not really optimised.... I used one of the scenes that floated around when LW2018 just came out and everyone was trying to get the lowest render times possible. Check the thread here (https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?155830-LW-2015-vs-LW-2018-Arch-Viz-render-testing&p=1537805&viewfull=1#post1537805).

P.S. Thanks Denis, didn't know about the presets... works like a charm!
P.P.S. all renders are done with OIDN 0.8.2

Did you use the normal and albedo pass? I'm getting excellent results with details in my tests.

peebeearr
03-28-2019, 03:13 AM
Did you use the normal and albedo pass? I'm getting excellent results with details in my tests.

Yes I do..... This is my node setup. I do clamp my Albedo pass to max 100% (or 1) with the DP Limit node although I have not seen any difference if I don't... I just follow Intel's instructions here.

Node setup
144598

I can see significant degradation when I either not use Albedo or Normal (You can't use normal without Albedo though).

Can you please post your results? Also your setup? I'm quite curious why I get the results I get.

Cheers,

Arthur

dpont
03-28-2019, 03:43 AM
Just a note to say that the Histogram node in DP Filter may help you
to see if your albedo input is correct (not going beyond 1.0).

Gerardo Estrada tested the case when you have transparency and an albedo input,
you need an albedo/raw with at least a 1.0 value (white)
to get the denoiser working in this region, not zero (black)
even if you don't have defined détails here.

Applying the denoiser on pre-rendered images is a different thing
compared to post-processing directly on rendering,
the filter radius (aka oversampling) may inhibit the denoiser.

Denis.

peebeearr
03-28-2019, 03:55 AM
Just a note to say that the Histogram node in DP Filter may help you
to see if your albedo input is correct (not going beyond 1.0).

Gerardo Estrada tested the case when you have transparency and an albedo input,
you need an albedo/raw with at least a 1.0 value (white)
to get the denoiser working in this region, not zero (black)
even if you don't have defined détails here.

Applying the denoiser on pre-rendered images is a different thing
compared to post-processing directly on rendering,
the filter radius (aka oversampling) may inhibit the denoiser.

Denis.

Hi Denis,

I use the LW image viewer to see if my values are above 100%. I verified that when I use your clamp/limit node the values will not exceed 1 or 100%.

peebeearr
03-28-2019, 04:02 AM
Hi Denis,

I use the LW image viewer to see if my values are above 100%. I verified that when I use your clamp/limit node the values will not exceed 1 or 100%.

But anyway, that is not really the issue I am facing here... it is the lack of detail while using MC GI.

Asticles
03-29-2019, 12:06 PM
But anyway, that is not really the issue I am facing here... it is the lack of detail while using MC GI.

How many samples do you need to recover the details?

OFF
03-30-2019, 04:54 AM
I made several tests on a simple scene and came to the conclusion that if you use luminescent polygons as a light source, the noise reduction in this case will kill small details (in random order). But if you use a conventional light source - the amount of noise decreases in direct proportion to the number of samples in the light source. More or less balanced values - from 16 to 32. If you raise the number of samples higher - the rendering time greatly increases, as with the increase of the rays Brute Force.

Poly light

144627

LW Light (16 samples)

144626

GI 2 rays
Camera settings 1/32, 001, 003

peebeearr
03-31-2019, 07:04 PM
I made several tests on a simple scene and came to the conclusion that if you use luminescent polygons as a light source, the noise reduction in this case will kill small details (in random order). But if you use a conventional light source - the amount of noise decreases in direct proportion to the number of samples in the light source. More or less balanced values - from 16 to 32. If you raise the number of samples higher - the rendering time greatly increases, as with the increase of the rays Brute Force.

Poly light

144627

LW Light (16 samples)

144626

GI 2 rays
Camera settings 1/32, 001, 003

In my examples the main light comes from a conventional light source --> 2 Portal lights. The rest is indirect lighting from bounces... That makes the whole thing a bit less usable for interior shots of this kind. I have another interior whith much more portal lights on more different angles (ie. more modern type of interior) and that comes out quite nicely.

So the conclusion we can draw here is that whenever indirect lighting is used, the filter can't handle it properly. The question is --> WHY???? And how to solve it!

Damn, I so wished this would work properly!! I will still use it and in many cases it will give you a better end result...

dpont
05-10-2019, 01:07 AM
OpenImageDenoiser has been updated to version 0.9,
you can download it here,
https://github.com/OpenImageDenoise/oidn/releases/download/v0.9.0/oidn-0.9.0.x64.vc14.windows.zip

If you installed previous version you just need to overwrite the "OpenImageDenoise.dll"
library in the plugin directory of the node.

The DP Filter node itself hasn't been modified, except the readme file,
including much more documentation about the denoiser behavior
and different ways for setting auxiliary maps.


Denis.

peebeearr
05-12-2019, 05:52 AM
OpenImageDenoiser has been updated to version 0.9,
you can download it here,
https://github.com/OpenImageDenoise/oidn/releases/download/v0.9.0/oidn-0.9.0.x64.vc14.windows.zip

If you installed previous version you just need to overwrite the "OpenImageDenoise.dll"
library in the plugin directory of the node.

The DP Filter node itself hasn't been modified, except the readme file,
including much more documentation about the denoiser behavior
and different ways for setting auxiliary maps.


Denis.

Thanks for the heads up Denis. I'll give it a run for the money tomorrow!

peebeearr
05-12-2019, 06:14 AM
...
The DP Filter node itself hasn't been modified, except the readme file,
including much more documentation about the denoiser behavior
and different ways for setting auxiliary maps.

Denis.

Hi Denis,

Couldn't find much difference in the readme file though....
Just downloaded it....
File name: readme_OpenImageDenoise.txt
File size: 2075
Date: 27-03-2019

Arthur

dpont
05-12-2019, 09:14 AM
...Couldn't find much difference in the readme file though....
Just downloaded it....

Yes I missed the upload…totally,
it is 05/12/19 dated now.

Thanks for report,
Denis.

peebeearr
05-12-2019, 06:01 PM
Yes I missed the upload…totally,
it is 05/12/19 dated now.

Thanks for report,
Denis.

Hi Denis,

I can see you changed the date on the page but the download still reflects the stuff from 27-03-2019 unless I'm totally doing things wrong here. I use this link http://dpont.pagesperso-orange.fr/plugins/nodes/OpenImageDenoise_2018_x64.zip

Cheers,

Arthur

dpont
05-13-2019, 03:49 AM
...I can see you changed the date on the page but the download still reflects the stuff from 27-03-2019 ...

As I said,
If you installed previous version you just need to overwrite the "OpenImageDenoise.dll" ,
each time the Denoise is updated I verify to see if the DPFilter node
is still correctly linked to the new dynamic library,
like for this one, so no need to update the node itself,
also the older libraries are ok,
but the readme file is updated.

Denis.

peebeearr
05-13-2019, 04:20 AM
As I said,
If you installed previous version you just need to overwrite the "OpenImageDenoise.dll" ,
each time the Denoise is updated I verify to see if the DPFilter node
is still correctly linked to the new dynamic library,
like for this one, so no need to update the node itself,
also the older libraries are ok,
but the readme file is updated.

Denis.

Hi Denis,

Sorry to be a pain but..... I understand how to update the Intel stuff and also understand that the nodes are not changed... I refer to the Readme file... I want to know what you wrote about the behaviour of the denoiser... The readme file in the ZIP package is still the one from the previous version.

Arthur

dpont
05-13-2019, 04:33 AM
... I refer to the Readme file... I want to know what you wrote about the behaviour of the denoiser... The readme file in the ZIP package is still the one from the previous version.
...

..I verifed the download too,
extracted the reame file,
it includes the new link and a "Extracted from OpenImagedenoiser documentation"
part of doc.

Denis.

peebeearr
05-13-2019, 04:42 AM
..I verifed the download too,
extracted the reame file,
it includes the new link and a "Extracted from OpenImagedenoiser documentation"
part of doc.

Denis.

.... I thought I was going crazy so I downloaded using a different browser and voila, indeed the Readme file is updated... Then I went back to Chrome to download just once more and guess what.... still the old version!!! Sorry to waste your time on something that is an apparent chaching issue from Chrome :-(

All good now :-)

dpont
05-13-2019, 04:50 AM
.... Sorry to waste your time on something that is an apparent chaching issue from Chrome

No problem, I know about those browser cache issue.

Denis.

maxi3dcp
07-16-2019, 07:17 PM
145453
145454
145455

Hello everyone, I'm having the following error when doing the OpenDenoiser goes all in black. I do not know what I can be having wrong. I have the latest version installed. With the previous one it did not happen to me. But with the current one this happens to me, try to go back to the previous version and there is no way. I have correctly installed plugins and dll. What can be?

Thank you

Asticles
07-17-2019, 01:31 AM
145453
145454
145455

Hello everyone, I'm having the following error when doing the OpenDenoiser goes all in black. I do not know what I can be having wrong. I have the latest version installed. With the previous one it did not happen to me. But with the current one this happens to me, try to go back to the previous version and there is no way. I have correctly installed plugins and dll. What can be?

Thank you

Check if the OpenImageDenoise is set to Linear color space, inside its options. sRGB makes also a black screen to me.

dpont
07-30-2019, 12:37 AM
Open Image Denoise has been updated to version 1.0.0:
https://github.com/OpenImageDenoise/oidn/releases/

If you already installed it,
just extracted the "OpenImageDenoise.dll" in the node plugin folder,
first install, follow the instructions in the readme file.

Tested in LW2019.1, seems better:
•Improved denoising quality ◦More details preserved
◦Less artifacts (e.g. noisy spots, color bleeding with albedo/normal)


Denis.

gar26lw
07-30-2019, 03:16 AM
thankyou

peebeearr
07-30-2019, 04:30 AM
Open Image Denoise has been updated to version 1.0.0:
https://github.com/OpenImageDenoise/oidn/releases/

If you already installed it,
just extracted the "OpenImageDenoise.dll" in the node plugin folder,
first install, follow the instructions in the readme file.

Tested in LW2019.1, seems better:
•Improved denoising quality ◦More details preserved
◦Less artifacts (e.g. noisy spots, color bleeding with albedo/normal)


Denis.

Definitely better! Especially in Albedo. Also It does a better job in a more balanced way of smoothing --> there are less 'untreated' areas now.
A minor downside is that the denoising is slightly more blurry than before.