Christopher Nichols Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 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. I agree with you about artifacts being rendered in the 3d render. Yes in VFX we try and match the plates, but we mostly want to do them in post. Like the vignetting effect that you get in Maxwell... why would you not do that (control that) in post? As well as grain. Film grain is an art to match. Takes me hours on some some plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 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. Very small if any render hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Tyrone- that image represents to me everything frustrating about Maxwell since beta. It shows off new technical capabilities, but it just doesn't look very convincing (like most of the post-beta imagery.) You've argued elsewhere that Maxwell is capable of doing all sorts of physically un-dreamt of materials, which isn't necessarily bad, but would 1.0 allow you to make that image look like it belongs in the known physical world if you wanted to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 I'm guessing that image was created in V1, it looks very CGish to me so I'm guessing who ever did it doesn’t really have a good grasp on how to create a good looking glass material. Please show us something impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I'm guessing that image was created in V1, it looks very CGish to me so I'm guessing who ever did it doesn’t really have a good grasp on how to create a good looking glass material. Please show us something impressive. Thanks Maxer, it is a test demonstration of glare feature working with DOF. And it is not created in V1. The large sphere in the center is not glass. however the green sphere in the background is glass. No attempt to make an Arch Visualization scene in this simple test, nor any goal to impress you. Nor will there ever be any attempt to satisfy a request to impress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Why did you post it then if were discussing V1 and the glare effect it creates if it wasn't created with V1, what are you trying to show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 The large sphere in the center is not glass. however the green sphere in the background is glass. I notice it does not refract. Is it the AGS, or a home-brew version of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Why did you post it then if were discussing V1 and the glare effect it creates if it wasn't created with V1, what are you trying to show? Read my last message again. A question or assumption was made about Glare and DOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I notice it does not refract. Is it the AGS, or a home-brew version of it? Ernest it is a simple version of the method to create the AGS. It could be improved greatly. There can be no more information on Glare, DOF, and AGS at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I don't think I could be any more confused than I am right now... it's not v1.0, but it is showing 1.0's AGS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Yes I'm completely confused as well, please explain what program you used to create this and what effect you are attempting to show to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Nor will there ever be any attempt to satisfy a request to impress. That's NextLimit's motto, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivoli Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I must admit I'm a bit confused too. apart from the fact that I can't see any noticeable glare there (rather some PS's diffuse glow?), what does that image have to do with maxwell v 1.0 and maxwell's dof and maxwell's glare if it's not even rendererd with maxwell 1.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 ...if it's not even rendererd with maxwell 1.0? Tyrone, please tell us that you actually have v1 to test at this point. That can't be a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Guys, why are we having an argument between some people who don't have V1 and a guy who does not work for Nextlimit? Please, chill for 2 days - with luck you'll have V1 then yourselves. We can all just get along until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Just trying to understand what he's trying to tell us, that's all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 I'm not sure what he was attempting to show us but it looked to me like he had a copy of V1 and was showing us an example of AGS glass with a glare applied. This would make since in the context of the discussion, anything else would be irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olbo Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Hmm, ... I guess he's using a pre-version (RC 7.2) ... as you can imagine, the V1 will be compiled and ready 3h before the release date. take care Oleg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now