As mentioned, the V-Ray denoiser does a better job of it, but if you're after physically accurate, you should avoid denoising entirely.
Attached, a custom mode with 1.0 strength and 50 px for kernel size.
We only implement OIDN, and we can't make substantial changes to the tech by ourselves.
To answer your doubt, however, yes, denoising always had issues, and will continue to sport limitations for the foreseeable future.
There is no guarantee, explicit or not, that a denoising job will work just fine for any given scenario.
Emissive surfaces behind glass are one such corner case that never was, and currently isn't, well handled (whereas non-emissive behind glass works fine, with the caveat of affecting all channels for the glass.).
As for LWF, hit me via email, and i'll try and help.
Attached, a custom mode with 1.0 strength and 50 px for kernel size.
We only implement OIDN, and we can't make substantial changes to the tech by ourselves.
To answer your doubt, however, yes, denoising always had issues, and will continue to sport limitations for the foreseeable future.
There is no guarantee, explicit or not, that a denoising job will work just fine for any given scenario.
Emissive surfaces behind glass are one such corner case that never was, and currently isn't, well handled (whereas non-emissive behind glass works fine, with the caveat of affecting all channels for the glass.).
As for LWF, hit me via email, and i'll try and help.
Comment