The promise of "realism"

[Gaze]

I've asked about the intrigue of Maxwell vs. other sw. Correct me if wrong, but the promise of new, more accurate rendering technology is the hook. The cost in render time is tradeoff for quality?

 

With that in mind, for the curious it would be interesting to see comparison of scenes rendered in Maxwell alongside other software options (same scene of course). I imagine people have done this, so could we see what you found out so far? How close does NL get to their promise at this point?

[TheAllusionisst]

There is a big discussion on this at XSI base if you are interested. http://www.xsibase.com/forum/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=22756;start=0

[smeggy]

These discussions are funny as hell, trying to recreate Maxwell's photoreal look in MR. Sometimes they get similar results (though not as good) but boy does it take a lot of discussing of values and tweaking. By the time they've done with all the millions of tests, tweaks and debates, Maxwell would've already completed the perfect picture. All renderers can produce 'convincing' images, few can produce truly realistic pictures.

 

It may be slow but it's so predictable that much of the tweaking is unnecessary, and what tweaking is needed is in adjusting lights and mats rather than the damn renderer. Fire and forget.

[IC]

All renderers can produce 'convincing' images, few can produce truly realistic pictures.

It may be slow but it's so predictable that much of the tweaking is unnecessary, and what tweaking is needed is in adjusting lights and mats rather than the damn renderer. Fire and forget.

 

Is that a good thing?

Surely the point is that in traditional renderers, the adjusting can go whichever way the user wants? Realism is just one of many desirable render outputs.

[Devin Johnston]

I would suggest not using Maxwell unless you wanted photorealistic results in every image you do. I find it surprising how many people talk about Maxwell's photorealism like it's a downside, how many years have people been asking for this exact thing and now that we have it people say it's to realistic.

 

The point is with Maxwell there is no need to spend hours or days tweaking lighting settings, you can spend that time creating materials or just making a better model. In either case Maxwell's images will only be acceptable to people who want photorealism, if you like the more CG look you should stick with Vray or MR or another engine.

[IC]

What I was actually meaning was "is 'fire and forget' a good thing?". There goes art.

 

I love realism and strived to achieve it for ages, but there are times when you not only don't need it but it's not wanted in a particular render.

Sometimes you have a certain look you want to achieve and you have to apply your brain to get it.

It's the part of the process I enjoy most.

[Devin Johnston]

I don't disagree with you, there are times when photorealism isn't called for and in those times you wouldn’t want to use Maxwell. However Maxwell is the first of a new breed of engines that is going to bring that one button rendering engine closer to home. I think the time of endlessly tweaking settings in order to get the desired look you want is going to quickly fade into the background. I can't say I'm going to miss having to spend hours tweaking light settings, its just not something I enjoy doing...but that’s just me.

[Fran]

What I was actually meaning was "is 'fire and forget' a good thing?". There goes art.

 

I love realism and strived to achieve it for ages, but there are times when you not only don't need it but it's not wanted in a particular render.

Sometimes you have a certain look you want to achieve and you have to apply your brain to get it.

It's the part of the process I enjoy most.

 

How so? Since when are GI artifacts "art"? There is a tremendous capacity for artistic expression with Maxwell. I'm always curious why people associate its potential with artistic limitation. But, if you are really interested in visualization, then you will want to produce the designer's intent as closely as possible. It is the designer who is the artist.

 

If you look at the works over at the Maxwell forum, a large amount of them are not what I would consider photorealistic.

[IC]

How so?

 

I consider the artists' input to be the art. Design and art are associated but not the same thing.

 

The reason I posted was that I found 'fire and forget' quite a disappointing and uninspiring oulook for the future of what we do. I didn't coin the phrase-I just reacted to it.

[Maximus3D]

Um, then you can ofcourse make a decision yourself to use whatever renderengine that fits the current type of rendering you're gonna do. Not everything works for everything, if it does everything then it most of the time does that poorly. If a NPR type rendering is what you're looking for then Maxwell is not for you.

 

/ Max

[Ernest Burden III]

Since when are GI artifacts "art"?

 

Oh, come on, Fran, you've seen my work. Somehow I've found a few nasty GI artifacts actually help me since the whole picture looks less Cg perfect. I'm actually worried that the quality of my work will be hit if I can get better GI results from FinalRender and Maxwell, vs. Lightscape and now Cinema's AR

 

What I was actually meaning was "is 'fire and forget' a good thing?". There goes art.

 

Tell that to a photographer. When I want to image a space, the last thing I want to be thinking about is a self-shadow bias and rays and things that don't relate to my old-fashioned habits about making art and images.

 

I want to think about where I want light and shade, warmth, coolness. I'm not a fan of DOF in archvis, but that's certainly something I am quite familiar with from photography.

 

Put it another way, Maxwell and similar CG engines allow us to go about the creating in a more traditional way than other engines. I like that, i think it aids the art, not squelches it.

 

 

If a NPR type rendering is what you're looking for then Maxwell is not for you.

 

My NPR was previously based on Lightscape, and MWR is just a better Lightscape. CG is just a starting point for some NPR work, so the better the ingredients the better the cake. Doing NPR work is why I bought into Maxwell.

[Paul Griger]

The reason I posted was that I found 'fire and forget' quite a disappointing and uninspiring oulook for the future of what we do. I didn't coin the phrase-I just reacted to it.

To extrapolate what Ernest mentions, a 'fire and forget' rendering system is no more dangerous to a CG artist than a “point and shoot” digital camera IMO.

 

In fact, the revolution with digital photography has only amplified professional photographers potential and I dare say has the possibility to build a level of appreciation for professionals among the recreational “point and shoot” amateurs.

 

The amateurs are finding that it’s not as easy as some would expect to achieve an artistic end result.

 

A digital camera still doesn't compose a frame, add the desired lighting, or find the prime DOF to highlight a subject among other things. The digital camera just shoots what it sees at a predictable level.

 

And hopefully M~R will give us the same ability, predictability in our rendering software.

[Chris_TC]

These discussions are funny as hell, trying to recreate Maxwell's photoreal look in MR. Sometimes they get similar results (though not as good) but boy does it take a lot of discussing of values and tweaking. By the time they've done with all the millions of tests, tweaks and debates, Maxwell would've already completed the perfect picture.

 

You are forgetting something there. It is true that we've spent a considerable amount of time tweaking this scene. Personally, I've put about 6 hours into lighting and render tests because we were looking for an ideal solution.

 

Yes, this setup time is longer than Maxwell's setup time. But now I that I've got the scene all set up I'm about to render out a full animation. Render times per frame @ 2048x1107px will probably be somewhere around 30 minutes.

Why? Well, for one thing Mental Ray is obviously faster in general, but also it's because I can store FG maps, because I can render in layers, because I can add effects in the post-production/compositing stage. Biased is not always a bad thing

 

I'm still very impressed by the quality Maxwell produces. But render times are ridiculously high. And Next Limit has really alienated me in the past weeks. I'm just happy I haven't pre-bought the software. It's scary to follow the threads of p*ssed off customers in the official forums.

[Juan Altieri]

then you will want to produce the designer's intent as closely as possible. It is the designer who is the artist.

not allways, give the same project and specifications to a couple of designers and you will have real different resoluts depending on the "eye" of the designer, in any software, i think maxwell is not "so close to the reality" cos, theres no "real" photos

Again: give the same project to take photos to a couple of photographers and you will have real different resoluts depending on the "eye" of the photographer, and boths are real.

[smeggy]

I think people are misrepresenting my 'fire and forget' comment.

 

The artist has copious amounts of control and input to get the scene just how we want it.. that's the artistic section in Maxwell. Once you have it how you want it the renderer just does it's thing in a perfectly predictable way. In MR you do not have that reassurance unless you are a very accomplished 'MR technician'. Once you setup your scene in MR, can you fire and forget or do you need to keep tweaking the rendereruntil you get what you want? I suspect for most it's a trial unless you're not particularly interested in photoreal (which is perfectly valid in CG).

 

Renderer tweaking isn't 'Art', modeling, setting up your scene, lighting, materials, that is the art.

 

What I'm reading here is the equivalent of a photographer setting up a shoot and then endlessly fiddling with the camera to get the shot. This isn't what happens, you know how it'll turn out and it's therefore 'fire and forget'.

 

Also, people are correct in that Maxwell isn't the ideal all-round renderer as it is limited to the real world in it's methodology. This is implicit in Maxwell's webpage, it's not a case of one type being better than another, just better for a specific purpose. If your needs go beyond the virtual photography studio then Maxwell isn't necessarily ideal for you.

 

No doubt MR, Vray etc. are fine renderers, and in the right hands are much better general purpose tools than Maxwell which makes them suitable for a range of scenarios beyond Maxwells capabilities. Horses for courses

[Fran]

not allways, give the same project and specifications to a couple of designers and you will have real different resoluts depending on the "eye" of the designer, in any software, i think maxwell is not "so close to the reality" cos, theres no "real" photos

Again: give the same project to take photos to a couple of photographers and you will have real different resoluts depending on the "eye" of the photographer, and boths are real.

 

So then, why would anyone be worried about a render engine limiting their artistic expression? People have this idea that you don't need to know anything to use Maxwell. One thing that no renderer on the planet can or ever will be able to give someone is talent or the ability to judge when something is good and when something is bad. If you don't have the "eye" you got nothing.

[IC]

I think I possibly wasn't clear enough in making my point earlier.

I don't have a problem with Maxwell and what it purports to do. I find it intriguing.

 

What I didn't appreciate was the inference that there are people out there 'hilariously' trying to emulate what Maxwell does using their renderer of choice. What's wrong with that? The beauty of the 'start from scratch render engine' is that you can emulate any look which has gone before or you can come up with something totally new.

If you love what Maxwell does, take it as flattery of Next Limit's engine.

 

And I know Maxwell can't be used effectively without any knowledge or ability. I have seen some poor work produced using it.

 

It's a while since there have been good discussions provoked on the forums. If anything, Next Limit have succeeded at that!

[smeggy]

Point taken.

The 'amusing' part for me is that many proponents of the other renderers saying that Maxwell isn't special and you can easily reproduce the look with whatever renderer... until they actually try it. Then we see the struggle people have and for the most part they fail miserably. I've witnessed this in a few forums and it is amusing seeing the contortions they put the renderers through.

 

It's not a comment on whether the other renderers are poor, just on how good and simple Maxwell really is and people don't usually realise it until they try for themselves. Maxwells controlls and interface are wonderful and the renders show it.

[IC]

Ah - I see what you mean.

 

I think to pick up on what Fran was saying, the reason people are worried about a render engine limiting their artistic expression is because they fear what Maxwell may lead to i.e a "one button render engine".

 

You have to agree that individual panache is harder to distinguish between the high end Maxwell users, even now. That has an inevitable conclusion as far I can see but if people with tremendously individual styles like Ernest Burden aren't concerned why should I be?

[Juan Altieri]

So then, why would anyone be worried about a render engine limiting their artistic expression?

i didn't say that, i only say that some render engines are not too much flexible... only can resolve some situations