Bongo51 Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I was just looking through the suppliment that came with 3D world magazine this month. I was surprised at how little the rendering engine mattered to how successful an image was. Some of the best were with Vray, and one really stunning image was produced with Cinema4D. Maxwell may be unbaised and produce 'realistic' results, but when you look at a collection of work by truly brilliant artists the one thing that stands out is how the rendering engine has very little to do with the image success! The fact that maxwell is unbiased (or mostly) is fine, but if it can't render a scene without crippling noise, then it's useless. Most artists (myself included) would choose a tool that can produce repeatable and QUICK results in favour of one which is problematic and full of noise. In order to be the tool of choice for professional artists I'm thinking maxwell needs to be a lot smarter... that is.. not blindly follow the unbiased path at every turn. There really needs to be settings for creating noise reduced images at larger sizes and with some semblance of it's current quality. if THAT can happen, it will clean up. We shall see I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Koylazov Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Getting V1.1 to look like the beta did is the highest priority for me, if they can't do that then all the other stuff is a waste of time.I have a theory about the maxwell "beta" look... which is this: maxwell beta was not quite physically correct with its materials (e.g. materials would reflect light in ways not possible in the real world). This somehow seemed to make the renderings "super-real" and more appealing. Once it was corrected, the sort of magical feeling seems to have gone - but the renders are probably more correct now. Now, this is just a theory that is based on observations, and it may or may not be correct - I have never used maxwell myself. However it can be easily verified - make a single sphere with some solid environment color without any lights, put some reflective material on it and render. If all is correct, no color on the sphere can be brighter than the environment itself, since a surface cannot reflect more light that falls on it. However, with maxwell, in some cases (depending on the material, I suppose) the sphere may turn out considerably brighter towards the edges... Best regards, Vlado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 ...with some semblance of it's current quality... It is hard for me to reconcile what the above phrase implies with the renderings posted to date. None threaten to equal, much less surpass, beta's quality. The mods, having played with V1 & V1.1 weeks or months before they hit the street (V1 52 days ago per Juan), have produced what renderings? Hmmmm, not a good sign. What has been posted after XX-hours of cooking still has noise or has had enough post/noise reduction that they look "soft". With that said, I'm still hanging on and will try V1.1 when time allows because I would like MWR to succeed. Like you said, "We shall see I suppose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I have a theory about the maxwell "beta" look... which is this: maxwell beta was not quite physically correct with its materials (e.g. materials would reflect light in ways not possible in the real world). This somehow seemed to make the renderings "super-real" and more appealing. Once it was corrected, the sort of magical feeling seems to have gone - but the renders are probably more correct now. Now, this is just a theory that is based on observations, and it may or may not be correct - I have never used maxwell myself. However it can be easily verified - make a single sphere with some solid environment color without any lights, put some reflective material on it and render. If all is correct, no color on the sphere can be brighter than the environment itself, since a surface cannot reflect more light that falls on it. However, with maxwell, in some cases (depending on the material, I suppose) the sphere may turn out considerably brighter towards the edges... Best regards, Vlado Hey Vlado, nice to see you here, interesting theory, I'll try it for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Hey Vlado, nice to see you here, interesting theory, I'll try it for sure Yeah, please do... I'll be interested to see what you come up with. BTW, was fun to watch the Azzurri take the big gold globe (hmmm... maybe render that? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 It is hard for me to reconcile what the above phrase implies with the renderings posted to date. None threaten to equal, much less surpass, beta's quality. The mods, having played with V1 & V1.1 weeks or months before they hit the street (V1 52 days ago per Juan), have produced what renderings? Hmmmm, not a good sign. What has been posted after XX-hours of cooking still has noise or has had enough post/noise reduction that they look "soft". With that said, I'm still hanging on and will try V1.1 when time allows because I would like MWR to succeed. Like you said, "We shall see I suppose." I personally don't miss the beta show-stopping issues like white noise on plastics, yellow noise on SSS, dark grainy glass, non-functioning clip maps and non-functioning cooperative rendering. They (NL) didn't want to admit that there was even any difference in quality between beta and RC through 1.0. To me, it's obvious that they were aware of the issues and have taken steps to remedy the quality disparity between those releases. Whether or not you think that there is any work done with V1.1 that reaches or exceeds beta quality, is certainly an important issue for you. It isn't for me any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Why not Fran, do you think the V1.1 has solved the problems with image quality that we saw with V1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Why not Fran, do you think the V1.1 has solved the problems with image quality that we saw with V1? What I think is that I can produce images with V1.1 that please me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 What I think is that I can produce images with V1.1 that please me. I am no expert with rendering sw but from images I have seen rendered with other sw, IMO, they can produce equal to or better than those rendered out of MWR V1 and V1.1 to date. For me, I bought into a totally different set of expectations which, I still hold out hope will be achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 I am no expert with rendering sw but from images I have seen rendered with other sw, IMO, they can produce equal to or better than those rendered out of MWR V1 and V1.1 to date. For me, I bought into a totally different set of expectations which, I still hold out hope will be achieved. You have to suit yourself above all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 You have to suit yourself above all. Good morning! True. Looking at the posts over at the forum, the feeling is, in general, that improvements have been made but the comments are mixed ranging almost full spectrum. Notably, Mihai is asking peeps to send in files for testing ILO belittling them and old Mike was toe-t0-toe with a user and Juan stepped in. Things are better. As soon as I get some free time (and render farm to achieve: " the performance boost will be serious (we expect to reach a 10x peak)"), I will pull v1.1 out and give it a go. Maybe it will reverse my opinion, too. 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