Cesar R Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Cesar, is it possible for CGA to host your file? Maybe you could upload it as a zipped 3ds. Chris, it would be nice to see the teapot reflecting the environment in a more similar way to Cesar's render. Looks kinda dead in there. And yes, the scene and the render aren't much, but Cesar seemed to like the material and asked about reproducing that in another program - maybe one that renders faster. I will see if i can find it and post it tonight... I need to catch up with some of the post on this thread too. Chris, I like your render, but aside from being EXTREMELY slow and the noise, M~R is a nice engine dont you think? believe I was trying hard at the office after I posted that image to rerender it with MR and I was not able to. - and I dont consider my self a noob. the reason I asked about the matrial transalions is because I max I cant find a shader that will blend two materials at different percentages like M~R does with BDSF's and Coats. The closest thing I found was a Shelac but that just one spinner. (although I do admit to work on mateial creation a bit to improve) and as far a the C4D translation, because I am looking to maybe "maybe" leave max for c4d since I have just bought my macbookpro and I am starting to like OS X plus I think modeling seems a little easier or more friendlier with c4d than max (Autdoesk need to redo their UI - or the right side where the modifier stack and modifier options are) .. okay thats good now, ill come back soon =) BTW if I sound mean at all it not my intention I just typing in a hurry, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 First a few responses... some of them may be a little harsh and I apologies for that. The sky IS a gimick, and if people can't reproduce a realistic looking sky usign IBL and/or normal lights, they may need to reconsider their skills as CG artists. It really does not take that much effort and with a little effort you can produce a good image and have a LOT more flexibility. Physical sun/sky does give the correct exposure and intensity of the environment, but does not give the subtle differences that you get from the clouds, the enironment at the horizon and anything else. Basically all sun/sky renderings look the same... When I look outside it always looks different every time, and it rarely looks like a sun/sky system. Pretty soon you will be able to tell the mediocre artists and the good ones from the ones that simply use the sun/sky... sorry it just had to be said. Now... I am not breaking any NDA of chaos since they demoed some of these features at Siggy last year. They DO have a sun/sky system and they DO have a physical camera system. I really like the physical camera system for the EXACT reason that Bongo talks about. However I would break the NDA if I told you anything more... My point is this... 60 min vs 1 min. Before I make my render match Cesa's render, I want Cesar to match mine and have no noise at all, and also, if you look closely. Mine bounces light around a LOT more and his stops short with some very grainy black corners. I would like to see his rendering time for that... then I will do another test and spend another 15 mins on that teapot for you Fran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 yeah from I am seeing... good to know about the lawsuits that is interesting. For more, see here (posts by Max3D, the reseller who threateded a lawsuit): http://www.dugge.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 If you have the stomach for yet more, there's plenty of NL malfeasance discussed on that site beyond the linked thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 My point is this... 60 min vs 1 min. Before I make my render match Cesa's render, I want Cesar to match mine and have no noise at all, and also, if you look closely. Mine bounces light around a LOT more and his stops short with some very grainy black corners. I would like to see his rendering time for that... then I will do another test and spend another 15 mins on that teapot for you Fran. You are basing much of the superiority of your image on the absence of noise. That doesn't make it a better image. Comparing times and noise, yours is absolutely better in those respects. However, the color cast is weird. The teapot is of an indeterminant material and doesn't distinguish itself in any way. The shadow from the "sun" on a portion of the wall is too soft for the proximity of the shadow-casting surface. The teapots are floating. There is no shadow complexity for any of the objects. I am very sure that even a 10-minute render from Vray would be a vast improvement. Imagine what a 60-minute render would look like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I agree. *Except* for the noise the M~R render is far superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cesar R Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 well chris, you know very well that for me to match your render in M~R will take hours to render if so. I can match yours in MR if you want hehe. I said I was not a noob, but I never said I was a pro either. Mediocre is an ugly word, I would rather use the word experienced. Chris, another thing, I personally like grainy images. I think it gives them a bit of an artistic touch. - keep in mind though that my render is just a lousy material / render test. But even though its a test and I do agree with all the flaws you pointed out I think if M~R gets more speed somehow its bound to produce great images. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 But even though its a test and I do agree with all the flaws you pointed out I think if M~R gets more speed somehow its bound to produce great images. What do you think? I have no opinion based upon first hand knowledge, but people smarter than I am seem to think that there isn't a lot of speed to be gained in Maxwell from software optimization. In that case, it'll be a matter of processing power increases. When hardware is fast enough that Maxwell can do a 1min render, will Vray be real-time? And, yeah... as much as I detest NL, the quality of imagery from Maxwell is generally superior to my eye... particularly in this comparison (noise excluded, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cesar R Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Okay, I've attached all 3 renders side by side for better viewing. - ONE thing that I will say everyone that with Vray, MR, Maxradiosity etc... you need more experience to light a scene than you do with M~R. anyway, let me find the model. Its a 3dsmax 8 scene, do you guys mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Can you save it as .3ds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cesar R Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 yes I can, I was just looking at my junk drive and I didnt bring it home with me. Monday I will have it uplodade for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Thanks Cesar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongo51 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 sorry Christopher... I see now what you are talking about regarding the Maxwell sky. I never updated my brain... since there was talk in the beginning of the physical sky being an entire system... clouds, haze distortion, etc. Really, for maxwell to be at all usefull in architecture it NEEDS that. Come to think of it, I much prefer Vue Infinite for doing exteriors, because though Vue's radiosity isn't quite as convincing as the maxwell 'light simulator' it's speed coupled with the amazing plants/sky/clouds/haze/etc. makes exterior scenes come alive. So. I'll admit when I'm wrong. The maxwell physical sky is a great idea, IF it were ever finished. Right now it's just much faster then using HDR images, but doesn't produce realistic reflections. Unless we all want to move to arizona where the land is flat, and people don't know what a cloud is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Chris, another thing, I personally like grainy images. I think it gives them a bit of an artistic touch. - keep in mind though that my render is just a lousy material / render test. But even though its a test and I do agree with all the flaws you pointed out I think if M~R gets more speed somehow its bound to produce great images. What do you think? I love grain but only if it matches photography. I have a friend of mine that has 200 gigs of grain footage so that he can match any stock of film... True film grain responds very differently in each channel of RGB and has different contrast levels as well. In VFX we have we have to match grain all the time, and we look at it with a fine tooth comb... gamma up the image a lot just to check each channel to make sure the grain in the blues greens and reds match in the darks, then gamma way down and do the same for the brights. Grain is an art. Grain should never come from 3D... it should always be added in post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 sorry Christopher... I see now what you are talking about regarding the Maxwell sky. I never updated my brain... since there was talk in the beginning of the physical sky being an entire system... clouds, haze distortion, etc. Really, for maxwell to be at all usefull in architecture it NEEDS that. Come to think of it, I much prefer Vue Infinite for doing exteriors, because though Vue's radiosity isn't quite as convincing as the maxwell 'light simulator' it's speed coupled with the amazing plants/sky/clouds/haze/etc. makes exterior scenes come alive. So. I'll admit when I'm wrong. The maxwell physical sky is a great idea, IF it were ever finished. Right now it's just much faster then using HDR images, but doesn't produce realistic reflections. Unless we all want to move to arizona where the land is flat, and people don't know what a cloud is. I do agree with you about the photography thing that you stated earlier... that IS the way to go, and Maxwell was one of the first places that really took it seriously and brought it to light. I admire them for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 You are basing much of the superiority of your image on the absence of noise. That doesn't make it a better image. Comparing times and noise, yours is absolutely better in those respects. However, the color cast is weird. The teapot is of an :)indeterminant material and doesn't distinguish itself in any way. The shadow from the "sun" on a portion of the wall is too soft for the proximity of the shadow-casting surface. The teapots are floating. There is no shadow complexity for any of the objects. I am very sure that even a 10-minute render from Vray would be a vast improvement. Imagine what a 60-minute render would look like! Absolutly not... my image sucks... it is a crappy scene to start with... it a pair freaking teapots in a hole. All I cared about was making it noiseless and fast. I am bashing Maxwell which cannot come up with a noiseless solution even after an hour. Time and noise is all I am talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongo51 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 off topic. Fran, I just visited your site... I must say, your work is quite stunning. Very, very nice. mmmmm... yummy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Absolutly not... my image sucks... it is a crappy scene to start with... it a pair freaking teapots in a hole. All I cared about was making it noiseless and fast. I am bashing Maxwell which cannot come up with a noiseless solution even after an hour. Time and noise is all I am talking about. Well, I'm glad you didn't think your image was good. Whew! But you've failed to make any meaningful point, IMHO. Except maybe that Vray can put out crappy images lickety-split. [ETA] Give the shadow correctness and complexity noise-free in a reasonable render time with Vray if you want to actually show anything worthwhile. I don't get the impression that you've shown Cesar or his request any respect, if you've simply taken the opportunity to bash Maxwell. And thanks Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I love grain but only if it matches photography. I have a friend of mine that has 200 gigs of grain footage so that he can match any stock of film... True film grain responds very differently in each channel of RGB and has different contrast levels as well....Grain is an art. Grain should never come from 3D... it should always be added in post. Why are you following these Maxwell threads, Chris? And why am I? I will start using vRay soon, so I may want to buy your Gnoman DVDs. Your points about grain are well taken--especially to me, someone who ADDS grain to renders. (I was always against that until I actually tried it, found it added a magic that I couldn't get any other way). So considering how primitive the arch-vis crowd's understanding of grain is, would you or your grain-obsessed friend please put together a film-grain-for-dummies tutorial? One interesting thing about grain is that in reality grain is a 3D effect applied to a 2D image--the effect comes from the film light-sensing medium being prone to clumps which distort the light either as it exposes the film or as light is shone through it (transparency), though the transmissive film has less because it uses dyes while negative film uses crystals. So its that slight optical bending combined with 'dead spots' between crystals that makes the grain. There's probably also some variation in the way the medium responds to the light (one molecule exposing more or less than its neighbor). Digital CCDs have a whole new set of optical problems, I'm not sure we would call that grain, just noise. Anyway, since many of the newer render engines seem prone to grain, a better understanding of the real film variety would be most helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cesar R Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 I admit I don't know what Im talking about sometimes, but Chris, don't be offensive. I agree is a crappy scene, but you dont have to point that out. I beg to differ. I think its a good SIMPLE scene to test out an engine that ANYONE can work with. (and yes I am going to share my model for that) I was quite ignorant about the amount of work it went into adding grain, I need to read more about photography and such. thanks for th clarification. It seems this thread is turning into another render engine war I just wanted some pointers on materials. and if it takes 3 hours to produce a "nicer" image in M~R then that is how long some people will have to wait. I personally dont like Vray. TOO complicated. Then again I like MR and.... so go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cesar R Posted June 25, 2006 Author Share Posted June 25, 2006 ...So considering how primitive the arch-vis crowd's understanding of grain is, would you or your grain-obsessed friend please put together a film-grain-for-dummies tutorial? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Cesar, Ernest is referring to Chris's friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Cesar... your scene is fine for testing lighting... that is why I recreated it initially. It is nothing special or pretty. I am well aware that you were using it for the same reason. I had no intention of using it for anything else then the same reason you were using it: to test some of the features on my rendering engine. I probably should not have shared some of my results, because I have learned one thing is that Maxwell users have been brainwashed to defend artifacts and insane rendering times.... so point taken Ernest. I will tell you this... as far as what "reality" of lighting is concerned... my image is more "correct" beyond the fact that mine has no grain. Part of that "correctness" comes from the fact that I am bouncing light around a lot more in the scene. You are bouncing light around a lot less which is what produces those dark grain filled corners. But as you and I know, and as some clients always seem to hint at... "correctness" is not always what people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I have learned one thing is that Maxwell users have been brainwashed to defend artifacts and insane rendering times.... so point taken Ernest. Did I make that point? So how's about a little primer on film grain/channels? Maybe it's already done and we just need a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 These are Vray. The 7min render used QMC for first bounce and Light Cache for secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Did I make that point? So how's about a little primer on film grain/channels? Maybe it's already done and we just need a link? Pretty straight forward... first thing you need is a good film grain plugin... several are available. I use nuke which most of you don't use. I know that photoshop and AE have thinks like Cinelook and Grain Surgery, but have no idea if they are any good. Once you use it, you need to check the response curve of each channel. Gamma up the image to around 6 or 7 check each channel and adjust the response on the lower end of the curve. Then gamma way down to around .2 ot .3 and do the same with the top of the response curve... Then you are done. Fran... Beautiful images... a real work of art... See? There is no need for the sun/sky system... 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