Beta/V1 comparison

[leoA4D]

(Text originally posted in Beta v. V1)

 

Rendertaxi is a decent renderer and he has updated his gallery over at the forum: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6265.

 

This is an interesting comparison of beta (below images 1 & 2) and v1 (3 & 4) results using identical images. The remarks, starting at the end of page 5, are amusing – the gloves are on.

 

For Ernest, I have posted the following Rendertaxi images:

[ivox3]

Nice Leo ....

 

also Ernest: this one I did in the other thread which you probably saw, but I'll repost it here anyway.

 

I composited both images into a single so a 'side by side' could be viewed.

 

Also: the V1 has been corrected a bit with some contrast & sharpness added. Just a pinch, though.

 

 

Being honest here, ......my personal take is, .......I'd be happy with either one of these renders. To say one is failing against the other is just splitting a hair.

 

but I'd also like to say that Alex clearly knows how to exact good quality from both versions, but clearly the majority aren't delivering at this level with any kind of consistancy or regular basis.

 

So, ............................

[schmoron13]

i'm curious to know what the render times where with these two (both beta and R1). It's not so much the quality that I've been absolutely stunned with, it's the 20hrs with a renderfarm to get said quality that is shocking

[leoA4D]

...the V1 has been corrected a bit with some contrast & sharpness added. Just a pinch, though...

 

Hi ivox,

Do you think rendertaxi put the beta images through some post to achieve those results? Will you correct/composite/post the other v1 image I attached here? I would like to see what you can do with that. How about some details on your treatment of the above image? I think your technique is quite successful.

 

Bottom line, his beta images are still superior, IMHO.

[rendertaxi]

hi all!

 

nice that my images are used for a deeper discussion! thanks for inviting me here, leonard.

first, i need to say that for a decent comparison i should´ve taken the same variables. in v1 images, there´s sun. there was in beta too, but the dielectric material didn´t let it through, well, you know.. this may result in the different color tint.

 

i wanted to try the white chairs... i took a different floor..

i had to re-apply the materials of course and tried to match the beta materials as good as possible except of the above mentioned.

 

i do like the v1 images, but when i put them next to each other, i liked the beta img more, especially the glass on the table. it doesn´t show as much and deep reflections as in beta glass.

maybe i need to try again to get the closest result to beta. weird, now we´re trying not to get close to a photo, but close to beta quality!!

 

for post-processing: beta images are only downsized from 2k, v1 images are downsized and level-adjusted in ps. no noise-reduction.

 

render times: beta images around 40h on dual xeon 3.2, v1 were 2 combined mxi, each around 20h. can´t remenber sl though...

 

i hope i gave you some clarifying information.. if you have further queistion, please post!

 

cheers, alex

[Ernest Burden III]

maybe i need to try again to get the closest result to beta. weird, now we´re trying not to get close to a photo, but close to beta quality!!

 

The floor in the older image is the worst part, and is typical of images rendered bith Beta. The v1 floor is nicer.

 

I've abused the images to see how they differ in color movement and contrsat/detail.

 

The beta has much more varied color, even on any given object. Look at the ceiling lamp, or the chairs or the mullions along their length. The v1 is stuck in blue. The v1 image has more contrast (partly due to the post work, possibly) in the middle structures and ceiling, but loses out in the foreground and bottom.

 

I guess we cannot match lighting. Is the sky working in v1?

[Sawyer]

I am a bit confused about these images. The Beta ones have that "MW look" but I don't understand what is happening with the light. I know the sun isn't coming through so is this indirect light bouncing in? And the second one has direct sun light. I am just trying to understand the difference and how to compair them. Now the bg buildings seem really different. the beta image has what looks like direct sun on the building from behind the camera. The v1 image looks like there is no direct sun and the shadows on the bg building faces are different. And looking at the metal objects (lights) it seems that the reflections are much greater on the v1 image.

[Devin Johnston]

I've been reading over on the Maxwell forum about how V1 might be mathematically correct but when it comes down to creating a pleasing image to the eye strict mathematics might not be the answer. What ever the difference in the beta and V1 are we have definitely moved farther away from that pleasing content regardless if it's the new material system or the engine it's self. Some have suggested that V1 needs to be recalibrated by someone with a background in mathematics and also art to try and re-capture what the beta had. I don't know if that's the answer but I think tests like this help to point out the large difference in the two pieces of software and hopefully NL is watching and learning and can make the corrections needed to bring this ship back on course. By the way both of these images are wonderful, but the beta is still my favorite.

[ivox3]

Leo,

 

So, .......like Alex said, he just did a downsizing on his original beta image. I didn't think there was any real PS done there.

 

On his V1, I did an auto-level actually with Digital Image Pro ( Microsoft's Editor), which does a very good job usually. At any rate, it actually needed very little, but the real adjustment came from adding a smidge of contrast, then subtley raising the sharpness.

 

I think the general consensus is obviously for the beta, ......but if you look at the hanging fixtures, I believe that V1 did an exceptionally good job with those and also the indirect light and shadowing on the rear wall is very well done by the v1 engine.

 

We could do this all day, ....there's pluses and minuses all over the place.

 

It's been a nice discussion though.

[rendertaxi]

hey guys,

 

just for the record ( and to throw in some more food for the discussion, hehe..): i´v uploaded the original, non-levelled V1 images at maxwellforum: http://http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6265&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

the levelled ones are still available as a link there.

i must admit i did a not so good job on levelling these, probably need to get used to new tft screens..

 

alex

[AdamT]

As in other side-by-side tests, it's hard to compare because the lighting is so different. One thing is for sure, though, and that's that rendertaxi can render.

 

Ironically, glass is the most troubling thing about v1. We have AGS which is great, but I can't seem to make a normal glass material that's anywhere near as convincing as we had in beta. I had a PM chat with Mihai about it, where he assured me that I just needed to boost my 90 degree brightness. JDHill said the same in rendertaxi's thread.

 

The problem is that fresnel is tied to IOR, i.e., the lower your IOR, the less fresnel reflection you get. Obviously that puts you in a bind with respect to glass, which needs both a low(ish) IOR and high fresnel.

 

Mihai said he was going to put up a tutorial "soon" showing how to do it right. That was 2-3 weeks ago. Seems his conversion to NL-speak is complete.

[Fran]

Great images Alexander. I was convinced that the difference between the look of beta and v1 images was due to emitters. I thought that Sun/Sky was pretty much the same in both. Your new renders throw a spanner in the works.

[_PopArt]

hehe. well it is nice that people are doing tests and trying to see what is going on and giving some energy to v1.0.

 

When 1.0 came out, and everyone was dissapointed, nl and the a-team all said together 'its great the only problem is that no one is capable of understanding the materials system.' and they bought themselves some time as everyone went and tried to work better with the material system, and after some time they discovered this wasnt true.

 

So people started saying 'the beta is better'. After some time Nl and a-team reorganized, and in unison start saying '1.0 is far more accurate and better, but for some reason the beta in some cases makes a more photographic image but trust us its really less photographic and acurate'

 

They are experts at buying time, its so obvious. V 1.1 will be even more accurate than 1.0 but less photographic than the beta because film sensors can often suggest reality more due to the nature of ISO settings at high fstop etc etc. They've survived for years this way:)

[olbo]

@_PopArt

 

Fantastic conclusion! :D

 

 

take care

Oleg

[Bongo51]

Has anyone considered that the problem with V1 isn't so much the core, but how complex it is?

 

Remember, the beta had like 5 settings. You could put bitmaps in some of the channels, and ramp the UV settings to increase the roughness, and THAT'S IT. How many ways could you mess up a beta rendering? Well... a few... but now... with V1... oh my.

 

Between the constant 'not enough room UV...bla bla' errors, and the multi layered texture, the ND setting, plus 200 other possible variables it's no freakin wonder the average render doesn't quite cut it. We need to all be experts in photonic radiation to make a decent render. To put the cherry on the cake, the box says "as easy as taking photographs". Does ANYONE at Next Limit really believe a normal ARTIST will find Studio to be EASY? I've experience in programming and been using Lightwave for eight years and my experience with V1 has been one big long string of frustrations.

 

No... I think there may be a mid-dark shadow issue, but otherwise the good renders I've seen compare nicely with the beta in many respects. I just believe it's now become such a touchy beast that getting the repeatability and consistency of the beta is now out of the question, and if your not technically minded and have an extra 40 hours that will have a huge negative impact on the quality of your work using V1

 

My 4.2 cents.

 

[Gattomanzo]

Maxwell isn't that bad, i use it for fast renders of logos, objects and whenever i have no time for tweaking mental ray, it does a perfect job.

 

i've used it in my few hours courses and students were very happy to use it, because its easier to understand (in time, not in complexity) that other render engines. I'm guilty of some purchases of maxwell render !!!

 

what pisses me off is the behaviour of Next Limit and some people in the official forum, this kinda fascist-dictatorship is above any form of tolerance and understanding, wasn't much easier to take a position like " we're sorry, have patience, we'll try to fix it"?

 

and now they say that they won't speak about release dates anymore

 

i wonder how this position can be defended or justified by anyone.

 

Now i am writing a magazine article for an italian cg magazine, speaking about the very nice features of maxwell, but about my NL odissey too...

[Bongo51]

Gattomanzo

yeah... I often wonder how Next Limit got to be so 'public-relations challenged' in the first place.

I bought the alpha version, and by the time RC1 was release the shine was off the penny. I'm used to dealing with Newtek, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. They may be big faceless (well not Newtek) corporations, but Next Limit's behaviour wouldn't even be considered by these companies. All of them are guilty of missing deadlines, but their response is to keep the customer informed and to admit via action that as customers and purchasers of their product that we do expect to be kept abreast of any changes which would impact our lives. Next Limit seems to feel that we all operate in a vacuum and it's Ok for them to make promises and then just plain ignore them when things don't get done as expected.

-

After the first time one would think Next Limit would learn. When several hundred people start flaming them on the forum you would think that would be something to be avoided. No... instead, Next Limit's response (instead of the simple changes requested) they decided to make the forum a closed forum and to ban anyone with the timerity to speak against the NL regime.

When my posts were deleted I complained, stating that as long as someone doesn't violate their FORUM RULES of CONDUCT that they shouldn't be banned. The response? Well it involved this phrase. " This is OUR FORUM and you will not talk about subjects which we TELL YOU not to discuss" end of story. The problem is though, that it isn't really THEIR forum. I mean, I know the servers belong to them, but the whole purpose of the forum is to assist CLIENTS. We all paid money to own this software and to be dictated to about what topics we can talk about in the OFF TOPIC section is plain nonesense. Which is why I have become one of the many artist whom no longer posts work there.

-

The NL forum has already lost countless brilliant artists. (some are now here) All we have left at the maxwell forum is a great number of new owners and a few lucky ones whom don't seem to care about the ethical aspect of this mess (oh, and a few zealots too.. no names).

-

Next Limit has to be the most irresponsible and unethical company I've ever dealt with. I cannot BELIEVE some of the things they have done. Up to and including blatant lies and purposly posting incorrect and misleading information on their site to sucker MORE people into buying unfinished software. (for more then a month after the whole RC1 debacle people were purchasing what they thought to be a completely functional and stable V1, something btw we still don't even have yet (IMO).. AND even though it was not finished, they happily accepted the full V1 price from the new suckers...err.. sorry... clients) I don't know about anyone else here, but for a company to sell you a product which isn't at all like what they advertise...well in both the USA and in Canada there are very stiff penalties against what they have done. "false advertising" is a crime. The only reason Next Limit has gotten away with it is that they are located in Spain, and that most of their clientelle are also located outside North America AND we are all scattered and too busy with our own lives to do anything about it. On paper though... I believe Next Limit as a company has commited actual crimes in many countries, or at the very least engaged in extremely unethical practices. I would bet the farm that if this were a physical product, and if NL were located on American Soil or in Canada this would not have been allowed to continue.

All of this is simply my opinion and my observations. I am to a small extent a victim of their shinanigans, but this is a new frontier. Global software still has very little real LAW to cope with any malfeasance. There needs to be something akin to INTERNIC for software distribution and sale to protect consumers from such bandit tactics. If your local stereo shop sold you a CD player that wouldn't play CDs and then refused to refund your money... well, I'm betting they would be shut down within a short period of time. There is the BBB and many other organizations to ensure consumers are not ripped off. But buying software on the internet is still a gamble. That doesn't make what Next Limit is doing anywhere close to being right.

[Gattomanzo]

ehi mate, can i use your post in my article?

 

i'll give you credits naturally.

 

PS i'll speak about zealots too

 

btw, speaking about crime and an eventually legal action against them, do moderators ,that are not employees of NL, are "criminal" too?

[AdamT]

ehi mate, can i use your post in my article?

Guess you don't have to worry about word limits?

[Maximus3D]

And i thought Jeff (admin) said that he did not want you complainers to discuss legal action and stuff like that on his forum, and now that's just what's happening here. You're breaking his rules!

 

Sad to see you're just as bad yourself as those you claim to be bad guys

 

/ Max

[Fran]

Magnus, Jeff does not want anyone using CGA to launch legal campaigns or organize any such actions. Referring to the legal actions of others is just that - a reference.

 

And please try to observe the rule about name-calling when you are referring to fellow members. Sorry to have to be so blunt, but I'm asking you as a fellow member.

[Maximus3D]

That's exactly the thing Fran, indirectly you're all using his forum to initiate legal actions or any other types of actions against NL and any people associated with them. Even a blind dog can see that! it's not a reference as you're trying to make it look like.

 

And i did not call anyone any names in my previous post, why you think so i have no clue as what i wasn't pointing out anyone in specific and neither a group of poeple. Please try to avoid hairsplitting, i seen numerous of the other guys badmounthing me and others and they got no warning or worse for that, the moderators let that slide as they're all into it.

 

Rules on this forum seem to be enforced only to those who don't complain all the time

 

/ Max

[Adehus]

Keep on chasing that red ball, Max...

[Fran]

Magnus - "you complainers". That is name-calling. Your recent reference to "trolls". People here have legitimate complaints. You do not.

[Maximus3D]

Frances, i used two "words". But you try to make the the bad guy now when there been far more and worse comments by your fellow "friends" on here, and only one of them recieved a slap on the hand for that. The rest are simply ignored as they're all part of the same negative community on here. Where's the fairness in how equal everyone should be treated in that.. there is non!

 

I'm sure Frances you can get me banned at the blink of an eye from this forum just because of my lack of negativity and for those two words i uttered. If so, be my guest.

 

/ Max