Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Dear Friends, This is an example of how Maxwell 1.0 reproduces the reality using few real-world parameters and reducing the setup time dramatically. In this case I (Jose-Martin "jomaga") made some photos of a Cornell box (see below) and tried to reproduce it in Maxwell. Once I had the geometry ready I spent only 15 minutes setting up the lighting conditions. First for the emitters I used the same real values (watts, temperature, lumen and efficacy). Then I created the wall materials using the same reflectance values that I obtained with the help of my luxometer. Finally I set the camera using the same real values of fStop, ISO and shutter that I used when I took the photo. I needed some tests to adjust the red and green colors but in fact I got a very good image soon without needing to tweak or guess values for hours. I think the use of real-world values is one top end benefit of Maxwell for an architect like me. Best regards, A-Team Laboratories® MAXWELL RENDER 1.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15-min lighting setup test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logitek Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 That is indeed some pretty amazing render!! Very realistic! For info, what's the render time for a quite small and simple scene like this one? But does it mean we'll all have to eventually equipe ourselves with cutting edge technologie equipment in oder to make realistic renders? And what would the result be if someone took time to do the same experiment with Vray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 They didn't give any render times but I'd say they probably let it render for several hours. I'm also not very familiar with a luxometer but if it's relatively inexpensive it may be very handy in creating physically accurate materials for Maxwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kippu Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 being an onlooker from vray for a long time ...this test is impressive for me ...but still the selling point would be the render time and if it was less or relatively less ... they would have put it up ...since its not there i am assuming its not short Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Once in a while you've just got to recognize a good piece of work when presented with it. That's a great test, it makes the Maxwell images compare quite favorably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigroo Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Should've run a spell check first though Does the Maxwell render show a little lack of ambient room light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 You're right Ernest, it's a great comparison rendering, and only 15 min to set it up in Maxwell it looks very much like the real deal. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jntdigital Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 nice. two more days right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesTaylor Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Like Kippu i've been keeping an eye on maxwell whilst sitting in the vray camp and its things like this test that keep me interested. Maxwell has an aweful lot of issues with its clients and understandable so, but it they can make it into a workable render (features and render time) its gonna be a great piece of software.........until then i'll only be reading about it tho!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Not too impressed by these pictures. If it were a true scientific test, I dont think the results would be too impressive. It looks more like something that is supposed to look scientific, nice special effects with the chalkboard with all of the scientific writing on it:p Beta or rC5 would have done the same, without the glow effect if there is one. Soon we will know what 1.0 is like, but for me these are clever ways, and love the technical drawings of the cornell box:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Victor said that these tests weren’t done scientifically in a lab environment so there is room for error. I will say though that setting up a scene and rendering it within 15 minutes and getting this kind of a result is pretty good. I know for a fact it would take a lot longer than that if I were using Final Render to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Not too impressed by these pictures. If it were a true scientific test, I dont think the results would be too impressive. It looks more like something that is supposed to look scientific, nice special effects with the chalkboard with all of the scientific writing on it:p Beta or rC5 would have done the same, without the glow effect if there is one. Soon we will know what 1.0 is like, but for me these are clever ways, and love the technical drawings of the cornell box:rolleyes: Whatevva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Not too impressed by these pictures. If it were a true scientific test, I dont think the results would be too impressive. It looks more like something that is supposed to look scientific, nice special effects with the chalkboard with all of the scientific writing on it:p Beta or rC5 would have done the same, without the glow effect if there is one. Soon we will know what 1.0 is like, but for me these are clever ways, and love the technical drawings of the cornell box:rolleyes: Gotta disagree, maybe I just haven't seen enough of this kind of workup in Beta to tell the difference but this looks very impressive. How many other pieces of software do we have that can do this with real camera and light specs? And if it seems a lot like RC5, it should - an RC is supposed to be very close to a release version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackb602 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Yeah, I have to admit those are very impressive examples of Maxwell's realism. There's just no getting around it. Jack 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