Christopher Nichols Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Point taken Fran... Denise, my apologies if my comments sounded derogatory. While I rarely seem Nurbs in architecture they still are very much used in product design. They are virtually never used anymore in vfx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 Soooo, the alpha version is available to purchase now. Anybody going to shell out the $400 to see if it works or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted November 18, 2004 Author Share Posted November 18, 2004 exciting aint it. im waiting until the c4d interface is released, which should be a.s.a.p. also, im keeping my eye on the c4d community see whaqt they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 While I rarely seem Nurbs in architecture they still are very much used in product design. They are virtually never used anymore in vfx. Christopher What IS being used in VFX? -- sub-D surfaces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 exciting aint it Have the English adopted the Americanism 'ain't' ? I would be willing to pop $400 for a promising rendering plug-in. Of course, I have to front the US$900 to upgrade from C8.5 to 9, for a few improvements. My car needed a few 'minor' things done, too. That was US$1400 today, and a possible animation fell through due to too little time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric_535 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 We (english) invented the word Im looking forward to seeing what this render is capable of too, im gonna keep my eye on this one Oh hi all by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 yup, aint is a Brit term hi Ric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Christopher What IS being used in VFX? -- sub-D surfaces? Well nurbs are still used a little in film since it is the only way for Maya to do Curves. Splines don't exists in Maya. But yeah, I would say that Nurbs are used only where Nurbs make sense, which is less and less these days. Sub-D's are the way to go, especially with Renderman micropoly SubD rendering. But Vray now has SubD support too In the old days of VFX, they used Nurbs for everything, that was because it was done in Alias. And they would have to do by avoiding trimmed surfaces. They used Nurbs for a flat wall. Building a simple building would take a week. But what has changes the most is character modeling. Gone are the day of 100's or Nurbs patches... it is all SubD now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 yup, aint is a Brit term hi Ric Oh ya.... Masters, Creators and the original Butchers of the English Language:p , but in a colorful manner ! hehehehehe Sub-d surfaces........... Modo, Modo, Modo, Modo....... If this Maxwell renderer is anygood maybe Luxology will snag it. Modo would become a very serious force to be reckoned with, if a full blown rendering module was part of the package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I thought Luxology were currently developing their own renderer? Looks like they can't put a foot wrong anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I thought Luxology were currently developing their own renderer? Looks like they can't put a foot wrong anyway. Why not snag a good thing in the early stages, oriented to the top end? You can't miss right now if your developing with a GUI thats flexible, deeeeep, and set up by and for the user/s workflow. Rather than programmers making buttons and interfaces that just put the info within the users grasp. It's a well thought through 'design' for Modo. Right now it's just a great modeling tool, not a simple program, though. Has it's share of quirks, however it's 1/2 a hand above C4D & Max for getting the job done quicker/easier- if we are comparing for a horse race. Cheers WDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yes luxology is creating their new renderer... I jave seen somewhere that they will release it at end of '05. I might be wrong thought... here are some tests I made with maxwell if you want to see... http://www.ixor.gr/maxwelltest/maxwell.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Thanks for putting up that page Andronikos - I hope to see more work there soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Thanks for putting up that page Andronikos - I hope to see more work there soon. I am testing every day! You will see more soon! I am currently working on materials - doing some kind of tutorial for all maxwell users... anyway I have also some news about maxwell render times here is a e-mail from Maxwell: Yes, you are right, this dark area is a little bug that I have fixed it today In a few days we will update a patch with this and other minor bugs fixed. here is the bug: http://noseman.org/testrenders/bug01.jpg About how to reduce the noise.. try to use as fewer emitter triangles as possible, and if you can, try to use lower reflectances in your materials. For example, if you use strong saturated diffuse colors, light will have to do a lot of bounces to propagate light in the scene and it means more render time to reduce noise. We are in alpha stage and for the moment optimizations are not our main target, but I am working hard in trying to reduce this annoying noise, and making maxwell faster and faster. Regards, and I hope that it will be useful for you. check out this thread : http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?p=1757301#post1757301 I can not kepp posting all these info in 3 different forums...sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'm a bit confused about what some people are looking for here. I've seen some great work already done with with this renderer but is it any better/more realistic than what you can do with Lightscape or V-Ray (I've never used either but I've seen loads of output from both.) Or for that matter any other good render engine in the right hands. So the difference is what? The fact that you place the sun in your scene and everything else just happens? This isn't 'perfection'-it's just some programmers' interpretation of how real light would/should act. There are hundreds of factors which can affect daylight. As has already been said, where is the art in that? Where do you get artistic satisfaction? Not from modelling anyway. Everything a 3d program does is fake, no matter how realistic it looks. Throughout the whole modelling/texturing/rendering process, faking a natural looking light setup for my scene is the part I love. I don't want that done for me as a preset, thank you very much. That said, I do see a use for it in certain situations but I am even starting to get bored by the prevalence of those 'pefect GI' interiors everyone is churning out with V-Ray. Look at architectural photography-actual interiors very rarely look like that. Hmmph! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'm a bit confused about what some people are looking for here. I've seen some great work already done with with this renderer but is it any better/more realistic than what you can do with Lightscape or V-Ray (I've never used either but I've seen loads of output from both.) Or for that matter any other good render engine in the right hands. So the difference is what? The fact that you place the sun in your scene and everything else just happens? This isn't 'perfection'-it's just some programmers' interpretation of how real light would/should act. There are hundreds of factors which can affect daylight. As has already been said, where is the art in that? Where do you get artistic satisfaction? Not from modelling anyway. Everything a 3d program does is fake, no matter how realistic it looks. Throughout the whole modelling/texturing/rendering process, faking a natural looking light setup for my scene is the part I love. I don't want that done for me as a preset, thank you very much. That said, I do see a use for it in certain situations but I am even starting to get bored by the prevalence of those 'pefect GI' interiors everyone is churning out with V-Ray. Look at architectural photography-actual interiors very rarely look like that. Hmmph! If you like so much doing everything by yourself go back to faking radiosity with 200 lights...also buy PII with 300Mhz to enjoy it even more... I think you missing the point! Renderers trying to simulate reality and maxwell is the best according to my knowledge right now. Yes it is slower than others but it is still alpha version and PC hardware development is fast too. This program is light simulation and material simulation - if you do not like fine... but I will continue using it cause even now early stages I have extremely realistic results. Soon you will use it... P.S. You don't enjoy it? Are you so good at modeling and texturing? Wow! Also go to this page :http://www.ixor.gr/maxwelltest/maxwell.htm and download a scene... try by using radiosity to have a room illuminated with only a small portion of direct Sun light going into a room...also to cast indirect caustics!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IC Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Well thanks for the rude comments but what I actually said, if you read the post, is that there is some enjoyment and art in doing it for yourself. I didn't make any negative comments about the renderer itself. Just general comments about the way technology is heading and questioning whether this (inevitable) progress is really a good thing. If my models can be made to look like photographs without much input from me, I'll do something else as the fun will be gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 well I totally agree that you will loose some king of joy...but this is happening at the first place since we stasted using computers. They are some proffesionals out there that still do all their drawings using ink and pencil and they critisize all of us that we use these boxes (PCs) ..anyway this post is about maxwell and I will say once again that I am socked with the quality! Yes it is slow as mentioned before but... you know... bla bla bla ...and really apologize if you felt that I was rude...and if I offend you. really sorry my friend... peace! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I'm sorry... I have to... it just does not make any sense. I'm going to have to call it... THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHS! Are you kidding me? Since when does a super grainy image with a ton of artifacts in TEN HOURS make sense for a quality rendering engine? Show me one image of an architectural project with no grain at 2k rendered in less then 5 hours. Jez... I've seen the fluid simulators of Day After Tomorrow take less time then that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivoli Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Jez... I've seen the fluid simulators of Day After Tomorrow take less time then that. hardly believable, but... i believe you. and you made a point there, a scene filled with a bunch of teapots means nothing. i do like teapots, but so far i haven't seen anything more than the questionable pleasure of lighting small test scenes. the few interiors i've seen rendered with maxwell (the closest things to a production image), were not impressive at all, the most of them even a bit too dark i'd say. it's alpha stage i know, lot of work to do yet, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I agree guys I am testing it and it is slow...the quality is there thought and the optimization are yet not their first priority... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 hardly believable, but... i believe you. Well working at DD... I can verify that. But since the people that wrote Maxwell make realflow, they may be used to insane rendering (simulation) times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I agree guys I am testing it and it is slow...the quality is there thought and the optimization are yet not their first priority... My point is that I don't see the quality. All I see is grain. Even the grain that I used to see in the old Arnold rendering 4 years ago looked better. It almost looks to me like the are using the old arnold engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 My point is that I don't see the quality. All I see is grain. I see the quality. The images on their gallery look mighty-fine. Very photographic, really TOO photographic. As someone who ADDS grain to his images, I'm not bothered by it, I like it. Especially if it's optional. Also, one slow render isn't such a problem if the result is saved and re-used. More renders of the same scene should be faster--or else there IS a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Adding grain is great... and important, but I want to add, it, I don't want it to be an artifact. Adding film grain is important but is a real science, higher grains in the blues, deaper grains in the darks, etc... Ernest, that method that they seem to be using would not involve a "saved" result, or have the ability to do it. If it did the grain would be static to the geometry... boy would THAT be bad. With that said... I will try not to judge it until I see more. I just have to say, that I have not seen any "quality" yet. 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