Reality is 6 Years Old and I Have a Question
Nyghtfall3D
Posts: 813
in The Commons
Is there any real difference in the photoreal quality of shaders and light between Lux and Iray?
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
In my opnion, as long as each is set up properly and uses native materials, no. There is no difference in the photoreal quality that can be achieved.
Ciao
TD
Define "native".
Reality doesn't rely on convergence, so the "type" of image you get from Reality will be much different. The main advantage of Reality is that scenes obey realistic lighting schemas. At the same time, the main disadvantage is that Reality, like other physics-based renderers, obeys realistic lighting schemas, so indirect lighting will always be an issue.
What's the difference between the two methods? I know how they work in terms of rendering, I'm asking what the under-the-hood difference is that results in the "type" of image each one produces - the technology behind them.
The simplest explanation I can give is that Iray, another physically-based renderer, works by convergence -- that is, when the "solution" to the image no longer changes -- whereas Reality renders never truly end as it is continuously generating photon counts over time.
One analogy for Reality is the simulation of a double-slit interference pattern with randomly generated photons...
Native means materials and shaders designed and set up for the render engine. Not auto converted from another render engine.
Reality doesn't render at all. It produces a text file that is read by Lux Render.
Both Lux Render and Iray require the collection of enough samples/rays/data to produce a noise free image = convergence. The difference is that Iray uses specific parameters to define when an image is "done". Whereas Lux Render by default lets the user decide when it is enough (even though you can also set parameters to define what the target is).
Both Iray and Lux Render can use a photo real mode that approximates real light behavior including indirect light, reflection, refraction, caustics, etc. Iray allows you to choose a subset of features if you want, Luxrender via Reality is pretty much always doing everything.
You will have a hard time to get the exact same look because there are too many variables, but from a purely "This looks real" standpoint, there is no significant difference.
LuxRender might have a small advantage in situations where the mixed wavelengths nature of light matters (refraction through a prism for example) but in most standard situations this is not significant.
Ciao
TD
Sorry but that is just semantics. If you set Iray to 100% convergence and give infinite time and iterations it won't stop either. Just like LuxRender which is by default stopped when the user decides that it has "converged" or the set limit is reached.
Edit to add: You can set up LuxRender to stop automatically based on image convergence. This is not accessbible via Reality as far as I know but you can read about it for example here for LuxBlend: http://www.luxrender.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10797
TD
Understood.
I know. I've used both, and currently use Iray.
Thank you.
Yes, I have used both, too. They are both excellent render engines and capable of a very high degree of realism. I am currently using Iray, mostly because it plays better with my GPUs. I have used Luxrender mostly via the Luxus interface and to a lesser degree via Reality. Mostly because I do not like the philosophy of the interface design in Reality, but that is of course a personal preference.
Ciao
TD
good question, and to the respondants, great answers. Thanks for taking the time to 'humanize' the complexity under the hood. Appreciated.
--ms