New Glare System

[Devin Johnston]

Dear Friends,

 

To dramatically enhance the realism of your renders Maxwell now offers an essential new feature: Glare!

Now glare effects (with obstacles) can be added using the newly implemented Fraunhofer Aperture Diffraction system

We are delighted to continue providing you with more and more creative possibilities. Enjoy!

 

Best regards,

Tom

A-Team Laboratories®

 

 

MAXWELL RENDER 1.0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW! Maxwell Glare System

Glare works according to two B/W mask images provided by the user.

There are referred to as an aperture map and an obstacle map.

An aperture map defines the shape of the aperture opening in the virtual

lens while the obstacle map describes the shape of external light blockers

like eyelashes, dust etc. Glare can be applied either during or after rendering.

Glare also provides user an intensity control.

 

Video Link: http://www.maxwellrender.com/files/traffic_H264.mov

[Fran]

Here are the sample images:

 

[Fran]

And the rest:

[AdamT]

Well, these are some of the easiest effects to add in post, so I can't say I'm impressed. I guess it will be useful as long as there's no render hit.

[Fran]

According to Juan, you can do this in the console editor interactively.

[Maximus3D]

True Fran, as it says in the announcement you control it's intensity and the shape of the glare with maps in realtime so it's a cool feature i'm glad it's there.

 

And if i remember correctly you can dirty up your lens too this way.. i'm not 100% sure yet.

 

/ Max

[Ernest Burden III]

And if i remember correctly you can dirty up your lens too this way..

 

Can you smear Vasaline on it, to do renderings of aging starlets?

 

The track light image looked great.

[Maximus3D]

Hehe Ernest, i'm sure you can smear that vaseline anywhere it works.. even on the lens

 

/ Max

[AdamT]

According to Juan, you can do this in the console editor interactively.

Just like PS or AE. Did he happen to comment on whether it adds to render time and/or memory use?

[Fran]

Just like PS or AE. Did he happen to comment on whether it adds to render time and/or memory use?

 

If you happen to have those programs. I have Photoshop, but I'm not that good at it. I would much rather have an interactive control working according to supposed physical correctness - as long as it looks like I want it to look.

[Christopher Nichols]

If you happen to have those programs. I have Photoshop, but I'm not that good at it. I would much rather have an interactive control working according to supposed physical correctness - as long as it looks like I want it to look.

 

In order to get a good specular bloom like that, it is best to have you data in full float. Most comping packages support this and doit well. The new AE as well. Potatoshop is slowly getting there. There is no need to do this in 3D. In fact I would recommend you never do it in 3D and always do it in post.

 

Don't want to sound like I am knocking Maxwell, but it seems to me that recently they are putting all sorts of cheap 2D "features" that have no place in a 3D renderer. Don't know if they are doing this just to make it look like they are adding all sorts of features, or if they are actually getting into the post effect business. But it seems to me that they my be taking advantage of some users that just don't know any better... obviously, many users here aren't bitting.

[AdamT]

Thank you Christopher, you've saved my sanity for another day.

 

Out of curiousity, I'd still like someone to ask:

 

*is it a post effect;

*what, if any, is the hit on render times;

*what, if any, is the additional memory requirement?

 

And what happens with animation if there's still some noise in the image? Are you going to get weirdly strobing glows and flashes?

[Fran]

In order to get a good specular bloom like that, it is best to have you data in full float. Most comping packages support this and doit well. The new AE as well. Potatoshop is slowly getting there. There is no need to do this in 3D. In fact I would recommend you never do it in 3D and always do it in post.

 

Don't want to sound like I am knocking Maxwell, but it seems to me that recently they are putting all sorts of cheap 2D "features" that have no place in a 3D renderer. Don't know if they are doing this just to make it look like they are adding all sorts of features, or if they are actually getting into the post effect business. But it seems to me that they my be taking advantage of some users that just don't know any better... obviously, many users here aren't bitting.

 

So, I suppose there is no reason for 3ds Max to have render effects or mental ray to have the lume tools and camera shaders either? And what about the Vray VFB options? Don't you use them?

 

Next Limit has said all along that Maxwell would eventually render out more than just rgb color space or whatever you call it. I don't know what science is behind the mxi file format, but it stores a lot of stuff that can be fine-tuned interactively in their mxi editor.

 

In fact Christopher, I think you should make Jeff give you a license of Maxwell gratis and you can see what all this is for yourself and write a review.

[AdamT]

Cinema has this same kind of effect, and yes, I never use it. Part of the reason is that it requires a lot of test renders. It seems that NL may have cured that ill, but I don't know what Mihai meant when he said it takes 30 seconds to calculate for an 800x600 image. Does that mean each time you change a parameter?

 

Another reason I don't use it is that it's very dependant on AA and image scale, so if you change any of those parameters you're pretty much hosed. It can also be unpredictable for animation, although that's not much of an issue with M~R.

[AdamT]

Just occurred to me that another reason I don't use the render effect is that it screws up other rendertime post effects. I wonder, if M~R is using a post effect, how it will play with dof and/or motion blur. Notice that none of the sample images has a significant dof effect.

[Christopher Nichols]

So, I suppose there is no reason for 3ds Max to have render effects or mental ray to have the lume tools and camera shaders either? And what about the Vray VFB options? Don't you use them?

 

Next Limit has said all along that Maxwell would eventually render out more than just rgb color space or whatever you call it. I don't know what science is behind the mxi file format, but it stores a lot of stuff that can be fine-tuned interactively in their mxi editor.

 

In fact Christopher, I think you should make Jeff give you a license of Maxwell gratis and you can see what all this is for yourself and write a review.

 

Actually yes... the 3dsmax post effects are useless these days. When was the last time anyone used Video Post? I think for me it was circa 1997. BTW... you can do a lense bloom in video post back then.

 

That has nothing to do with rendering to elements and g-bufer output. The Vray VFB is great an replaces the strong lacking VFB in Max. What it does is help you preview and see all the layers and color potential (LCDs and CRTs don't give you a good dynamic range). I would never use the VFB as a post effect.

 

Just to make sure we understand eachother. Rendering extra data out of a 3D package is essential and not a post effect. But doing a post effect like the bloom, is not something that should be done in a 3d render.

[Fran]

Just to make sure we understand eachother. Rendering extra data out of a 3D package is essential and not a post effect. But doing a post effect like the bloom, is not something that should be done in a 3d render.

 

And just so you understand me, the glare effect is not necessarily a post effect and very well could be a manipulation of stored data in the image file. Nobody knows for sure yet. So writing it off is a bit premature.

[Christopher Nichols]

And just so you understand me, the glare effect is not necessarily a post effect and very well could be a manipulation of stored data in the image file. Nobody knows for sure yet. So writing it off is a bit premature.

 

Are you saying that the glare is rendered in 3D? Are you saying that Maxwell is calculating the atmospherics, density and humidity of the air, tracing the rays as they get obstructed by the lense and shutters and seeing how that ray scatters in the volumetic and returns a color based on 3D data? I really don't think so. But if it is, then you are right and it is not post effect but rendered in 3D. I would also be reallys scared of the rendering times. Otherwise, this type of effect can be done by a number of 2D methods, including a POST effect in Maxwell.

 

Not to say that it is not cool to have. Sure, fine, put it in there, but it is fairly simple and nothing innovative... by a long shot. Generally I like to leave post effects like this one for the compers. This also applies to there "fancy" light sliders... We did this on Stealth. We called it "Shampositing" for shader compositing.

[Fran]

Are you saying that the glare is rendered in 3D?

 

I'm saying we're not sure. Did you read that part?

 

Not to say that it is not cool to have. Sure, fine, put it in there, but it is fairly simple and nothing innovative... by a long shot. Generally I like to leave post effects like this one for the compers.

 

Good for you that you have teams of people working on this stuff.

[Christopher Nichols]

I'm saying we're not sure. Did you read that part?

 

I was joking... my point is, that there is no chance that that is the case that it is being rendered in 3D.

 

Good for you that you have teams of people working on this stuff.

 

Don't need a team of people to do this. It is very easy to do...

 

http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_education/specular_bloom/specular_bloom.htm

 

Lastly Fran, didn't mean to get into a fight with you on this. And I want to make sure you know that my comments are all based on my speculation and what I already know of rendering software and from what I have seen in these demos of "features."

 

There are a lot of really amazing and clever things that Arnold, oops, I mean Maxwell, can do. These new features seem silly.

[Fran]

I was joking... my point is, that there is no chance that that is the case that it is being rendered in 3D.

 

Ah. I see. The joke was so subtle and unfunny that I completely misinterpreted it as your considered opinion.

 

Don't need a team of people to do this. It is very easy to do...

 

The point is that you view this feature as a mundane process that you pass off to someone else to do. And Oprah likes clean sheets every day. Does she change them? No, even though it's really easy to do.

 

Lastly Fran, didn't mean to get into a fight with you on this. And I want to make sure you know that my comments are all based on my speculation and what I already know of rendering software and from what I have seen in these demos of "features."

 

Yes speculation is the operative word here - we're all speculating. But as far as the workings of Maxwell goes, you're in the dark. Wait and see how it works before you decide how silly it is.

 

Bad glare on a bad render is like putting lipstick on a pig. That is what nearly all of those sample renders look like to me. The key is exploiting the cheesy and cheap to your advantage.

 

[ETA] Here is a statement from one of the beta testers:

 

It's all about subtleties again. In some cases it is more obvious having this light diffraction feature in Maxwell, for example street lights at night, just glare and bloom tricks in PS will hardly look the same as doing it this way. The glare you see in some of those images posted today are not just coming from the areas of the bright lightsources, but depending on which aperture and obstacle maps you use, you get localized glare/bloom but also wider glare effects, think for example taking a picture at 30° angle facing the sun.

[AdamT]

Sorry to disagree with you Fran, but you don't need a glare department to create this effect. There are many relatively cheap plugins that allow you to do the same thing in a matter of seconds.

[Fran]

Sorry to disagree with you Fran, but you don't need a glare department to create this effect. There are many relatively cheap plugins that allow you to do the same thing in a matter of seconds.

 

No you don't need a department. And cheap plugins abound.

[Sawyer]

From what I see this seems very simular to using a z-buffer gray scale image in CS2's new lens blur filter. Or Richard Rosenman depth of field generator. Different effect but simular idea.

[Ernest Burden III]

...CS2's new lens blur filter. Or Richard Rosenman depth of field generator. Different effect but simular idea.

 

Well, similar to the 'bokoh' (however that's correctly spelled) DOF process. Maxwell and similar products seem to produce proper DOF blurring in that foreground objects can be blurred, but you see focused midground object through the blur. That effect can be simulated in 2D, but its not the same as true lens effects. Maybe this glare is the same? I don't know how MWR is doing it, and with it being a last-minute addition I'm likely to belive its a 2D post effect. It's another example of what bothers me most about 'photoreal' rendering--bringing the flaws of optical systems into a system that wonderfully lacks them. I know that in VFX you're always working to match live plates and the look of film, but for arch-vis rendering, it bugs me.

 

Old issue, been argued before. This is just the latest version.