I'm no expert, but I've read that the material system is very different from Blenders native render engine. Everything else would be a big surprise, since Cycles is very different from Blenders internal renderer.  

I've seen some videos, (cannot see your video from here at the moment), but what I've seen is mostly plastic, shiny metal and matte - things which are easy with an unbiased renderer. Everything else did not look photorealistic to me, just with realistic lights. I've seen a very quick render in the main demo, but then, there was not much in the scene, just two planes and Blenders apehead. A simple scene like this will not need many samples in Lux to get clean, IMHO, so I cannot really judge the speed. Yes, it's faster than Lux is, the renderer works with RGB values instead of wavelengths, so it trades some realism for speed.

Every render engine is different. Learning what works and what not takes some time, I want to know where the benefit is. I've started with Lux, I have experiences with Firefly and Vue's render engine. I don't have much problems with Lux's rendering speed, since I have to sleep and go to work - so I have at least 14 hours render time on a normal working day. If Cycles is fast enough for animations, it may be worth it, but for stills, I doubt that I want to learn how it works. I haven't mastered Vue yet, and even less Lux. I don't want to learn another engine.

 If it's really "nearly real time" with the hardware I have (no idea how many NIVIDA cards you need for that), it may be worth it. But then, where would be the benefit in needing blender as a bridge? I mean, then Pose2Lux would be obsolete because we could still use Blender as bridge? If Cycles eats XML, why not a Pose2Cycles?

 

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori.