Denoiser produces artefacts depending on radius #53816

Closed
opened 2018-01-17 14:30:19 +01:00 by Christoph Werner · 10 comments

System Information

  • Windows 10 Pro
  • GeForce GTX 1080Ti

Blender Version
2.79 5bd8ac9

Short description of error
I worked some weeks on this project here: http://bit.ly/2FKTU0p

While the development I made interesting experience with the denoiser. Below you see an example what happen, when the denoiser is used with different values. What I do not understand are some points.

Why is the denoiser producing artefacts when using bump textures? My experience with diffuse and regular textures without any bumpmaps are well and mostly without any artefacts. As soon as bump maps or normal map informations are added, blender produces ugly artefacts like you see in my example below. It could be just a feeling, but I think bump maps and denoiser are not good friends...

Here are some settings with an image of a part of my scene to compare what happen. My official settings I am using are on the left hand in the shot.
The lower the radius the more splotches appear. They look like photon spots but are coming from the denoiser only. I've rendered the part with a very high resolution without denoiser to see if there are any photons visible, but all looks well.

image.png

Basically the smaller the radius in my experience the more splotches appear. And you can not improve it by experimenting with the options. Of course I get more details, when I use a smaller radius, but the artefacts overweight. So in my case I decided to use the highest radius, to get a smoother result. But even there are some splotches.

Is the denoiser still in development and can I expect some better results in the future?

Thank you
Chris

**System Information** - Windows 10 Pro - GeForce GTX 1080Ti **Blender Version** 2.79 5bd8ac9 **Short description of error** I worked some weeks on this project here: http://bit.ly/2FKTU0p While the development I made interesting experience with the denoiser. Below you see an example what happen, when the denoiser is used with different values. What I do not understand are some points. Why is the denoiser producing artefacts when using bump textures? My experience with diffuse and regular textures without any bumpmaps are well and mostly without any artefacts. As soon as bump maps or normal map informations are added, blender produces ugly artefacts like you see in my example below. It could be just a feeling, but I think bump maps and denoiser are not good friends... Here are some settings with an image of a part of my scene to compare what happen. My official settings I am using are on the left hand in the shot. The lower the radius the more splotches appear. They look like photon spots but are coming from the denoiser only. I've rendered the part with a very high resolution without denoiser to see if there are any photons visible, but all looks well. ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F1866273/image.png) Basically the smaller the radius in my experience the more splotches appear. And you can not improve it by experimenting with the options. Of course I get more details, when I use a smaller radius, but the artefacts overweight. So in my case I decided to use the highest radius, to get a smoother result. But even there are some splotches. Is the denoiser still in development and can I expect some better results in the future? Thank you Chris

Added subscriber: @ChristophWerner

Added subscriber: @ChristophWerner

Added subscriber: @SteffenD

Added subscriber: @SteffenD
Member

Added subscribers: @LukasStockner, @lichtwerk

Added subscribers: @LukasStockner, @lichtwerk
Lukas Stockner was assigned by Philipp Oeser 2018-01-17 17:28:11 +01:00
Member

From a quick glance I would assume that this is more or less expected behaviour, but it is hard to judge without having a look at the actual .blend file.

  • afaik using bumpmaps makes it harder to denoise because lighting conditions actually change because of the bump (without knowing the internals of the denoiser it makes sense that a surface with a very uniform normal is easier to denoise)
  • in your example you are not only changing the radius, but also other parameters (which makes it even harder to judge)

Marking as incomplete until we can have a look at the actal .blend file
Assigning @LukasStockner to share his wisdom here...

From a quick glance I would assume that this is more or less expected behaviour, but it is hard to judge without having a look at the actual .blend file. - afaik using bumpmaps makes it harder to denoise because lighting conditions actually change because of the bump (without knowing the internals of the denoiser it makes sense that a surface with a very uniform normal is easier to denoise) - in your example you are not only changing the radius, but also other parameters (which makes it even harder to judge) Marking as incomplete until we can have a look at the actal .blend file Assigning @LukasStockner to share his wisdom here...

Added subscriber: @brecht

Added subscriber: @brecht

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

The denoiser can always be improved, but there's nog bugs here.

As @lichtwerk says bump maps making it harder to do denoising, because neighboring pixels will have different lighting and there's less information to share. Denoising algorithms in general will convert high frequency noise to low frequency noise (splotches).

The denoiser can always be improved, but there's nog bugs here. As @lichtwerk says bump maps making it harder to do denoising, because neighboring pixels will have different lighting and there's less information to share. Denoising algorithms in general will convert high frequency noise to low frequency noise (splotches).

Thank you for your answer.

No problem. I prepared a reduced version of my scene for testing.
The file contains all needed textures too.

There is a render border I added, to give you the possibility to see the area I used in my tests.

Additionally I have prepared some new renders to show what happen using different settings. In this case I just altered just the radius.

But there are two more examples where I have set a sample rate of 10.000 samples. This is something I normally would never do... because of to much render time and what makes no sense in most cases. But for testing it is really interesting to see what happen. Compare the radius of 8 in 1.200 samples. There are less artefacts at 10.000, but very expensive...

My wish would be to kow sometime the denoiser splotches disappear, that makes a flat texture area like the wall looking like a "ugly jpeg".

Here ist the scene for you: denoiser_test.blend

An here the new render results to compare:
denoiser_values02.png

Thank you for your answer. No problem. I prepared a reduced version of my scene for testing. The file contains all needed textures too. There is a render border I added, to give you the possibility to see the area I used in my tests. Additionally I have prepared some new renders to show what happen using different settings. In this case I just altered just the radius. But there are two more examples where I have set a sample rate of 10.000 samples. This is something I normally would never do... because of to much render time and what makes no sense in most cases. But for testing it is really interesting to see what happen. Compare the radius of 8 in 1.200 samples. There are less artefacts at 10.000, but very expensive... My wish would be to kow sometime the denoiser splotches disappear, that makes a flat texture area like the wall looking like a "ugly jpeg". Here ist the scene for you: [denoiser_test.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F1869406/denoiser_test.blend) An here the new render results to compare: ![denoiser_values02.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F1869402/denoiser_values02.png)

Hi Brecht. Thank you for your answer.
I haven't seen your post before I posted here.

A general question: Should I better post bugs only and not this mix of "feature request" and "experience"... ?
Sorry then.

Hi Brecht. Thank you for your answer. I haven't seen your post before I posted here. A general question: Should I better post bugs only and not this mix of "feature request" and "experience"... ? Sorry then.

Well, normally bugs only. Though this could have been a bug, it's hard to know these things without being familiar with underlying algorithms. It doesn't harm to report things just in case.

Well, normally bugs only. Though this could have been a bug, it's hard to know these things without being familiar with underlying algorithms. It doesn't harm to report things just in case.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#53816
No description provided.