Graham Nixon Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi Guys, just a quick question about renderers, is it possible to produce great looking work with the default Max renderer, or is it necessary to use Mental Ray VRay etc? if so what's your favourite renderer and why??? Cheers Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 the scan liner? yes, it certainly is, but to accurately emmulate an external renderer? physically no. but some extremely skilled artists get very close to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izrut Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 U must be extremely observent to creat physically correct images. defalt max renderer is no good when the goal is photorealistic pictures. me favorite - MR! full control of light cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 . defalt max renderer is no good when the goal is photorealistic pictures. incorrect. as i said, you CAN create photorealism in the scanliner, but you must be a diva at it. my initial rendering of my luxury appartments (the 3 podded ones) was rendered in viz 3 with default scan line renderer a few years ago. thats photoreal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voltaire_ira Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 incorrect. as i said, you CAN create photorealism in the scanliner, but you must be a diva at it. my initial rendering of my luxury appartments (the 3 podded ones) was rendered in viz 3 with default scan line renderer a few years ago. thats photoreal strat, can you post the render you mentioned and the light set up? i presume you used fakiosity? I'm trying to get good results with scanline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izrut Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 my initial rendering of my luxury appartments (the 3 podded ones) was rendered in viz 3 with default scan line renderer a few years ago. thats photoreal show me! I guess they are very atractive but are they photorealistic?! there's notihing impossibile in this world BUT achieving photorealism with defalt max renderer is quite a headache.Rendering should be pleasure and fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 not perfect by any means, but fooled a heck of a lot of peeps at the time, and for viz 3 it show what the basic scanliner can do. light setup - unlike most ppl who babble on about a zillion complex bits and bobs in their set ups, i've always tried to keep things simple as possible. final image - as i say, not perfect, but certainly shows how photoreal the scanliner can get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izrut Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 nice job I like it but because of your skill to combine a real photo and perffect modeling does not mean that this is photorealistic other renderers can make it look even better. I hope U don't take this personally, we are talking about photorealism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 no no, i dont take it personally atall ur right, these days external renderers are designed especially to produce real-world lighting and photorealistic results. I've since re-rendered this in C4D and it looks even nicerer but for a nubie, who maybe cant afford 3rd party stuff, this just goes to show that the scanline renderer CAN produce close to photoreal imagery. and again, it's down to personal perception - to some this is photoreal, to others it's not. and i think ur comment about the scanliner not being able to create photoreal images is still wrong. my water shaders are all completely scanlined (ie, no hdri, no gi, no radiosity etc) another way of getting photorealism other than lighting - texturing. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sjleworthy/wp-03/c4dwater.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izrut Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 very very nice images man, U R Good I guess I have to trust U about that - Defalt renderer CAN achieve photorealistic images because U R much more experienced in 3d world to clear out our dispute here...do U think it is easier to achieve photorealism with defalt renderer than the others...and how this affect the time rendering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 cheers for comments m8, i been in this business too long i think it's much easier to achieve photorealism with special renderers. altho using the default scanline renderer with fake gi usually renders ALLOT faster. but my advice for nubies looking to achive consistantly great results - learn basic default render lighting techniques first before you putchase a renderer that does it for you. this way you'll achieve an excellent grounding and knowlege of lighting and environmental skills. it's certainly not a requirement, but some newbs who bypass this and go straight into expensive 3rd party renderers end up with their imagery all looking the same usually. flat and lifeless, because they expect a 1 click solution. you must learn the basics from scratch, fully. imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dp Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 strat said "it's certainly not a requirement, but some newbs who bypass this and go straight into expensive 3rd party renderers end up with their imagery all looking the same usually. flat and lifeless, because they expect a 1 click solution. you must learn the basics from scratch, fully. imo." i'd second and third that there is no one click "make art now" and a hell of a lot we see here is good but a lot of it looks the same as it's the software taking the strain typical shot of a lounge area - tasty furnture via turbosquid etc lit by g.i. skylight do the guys at pixar use gi nope have they a style probably most of us here are button pusher/mouse movers - but some do more pushing to move cgi along to wherever it's going (and i hope it's not a photo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Strat, I am old enough to know that what you did is what a client wants. I have a problem when people are trying to analyze the physical properties of light to produce a scientific photoreal image. I am a physicist by education and my specialty was radio astronomy (No money there.... perhaps no money here...) In the real world where time means money to the clients.... your rendering is a very good one. Specially when you are talking with the money guys.... They don't care about the photonic transmition of light... They just want something to impress their clients... Your rendering will impress anybody that takes a look at it. See you Elliot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 cheers Elliot We actually took a flyer on this image. the client never asked for it, but we anticipated him it was one of those images where all i had was the original aerial photo. the rest was at my descretion. It's personel choice i suppose - after reading peeps's opinions here over the years i've found a large chunk of the archi cg community DONT strive for photorealism perfection. most ppl dont like it and find it most "un-artistic" even. this supprised me at the time. I like NPR and 'arty' rendering allot, but my main goal is/has always been photorealism in my montages. even my non photo montage work i like to get looking as real as time permits. but then, i never annalise lights and settings too deeply. i always keep settups ultra simple (in above setup example) and just render out what i feel looks nice. but peeps who spend years annalising light properties, or have lighting rig settups that look like a page out of a particle physics manual, or have long complicated material trees and properties - now these guys make me laugh personally. keep it simple folks. less is more. and the more experianced you get the less you put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izrut Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 i never annalise lights and settings too deeply. i always keep settups ultra simple (in above setup example) and just render out what i feel looks nice. I like your approuch! I'm testing it now May be tomorrow I'll post the result for U to make strong remarks Have a nice day! Cheers 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