Rendering a composite of multiple layers changes the image.

[evanmichalski]

Using 3ds Max 2015 and V-Ray 3.10.03

 

I'm having an issue with a rglossiness composite map that has several layers attached to it: bercon noise, textures, masks, etc, and I tried to render out the final composite from the material editor options so that I can use the texture as a template for other projects, but I noticed when I rendered my scene with that texture I created it comes out completely different. At first I thought it had to do with my gamma output settings, but I made sure they matched the original composite image in the preview, but it still made no difference. I then tried to render it to a higher resolution up to 2048x2048, modified the blur in the texture from 1.0 to .01, and still no bueno. Am I to assume the integrity of the composite completely changes if I try to render it out? Or is something else going on? Here is a pic of what is going on:

 

 

As you can see the first render with the original composite has a lot more detail in the glossiness, and in the second one you can see it's less detailed.

[jasonstewart]

My guess is that the smaller details are not being captured in the baked map, if there are details smaller than a pixel then there is no way to capture that detail. Maybe try baking it out larger.

[evanmichalski]

My guess is that the smaller details are not being captured in the baked map, if there are details smaller than a pixel then there is no way to capture that detail. Maybe try baking it out larger.

 

Apologies for the late response, been distracted with real life nonsense. Anyways, I tried increasing the resolution to 4096x4096 but the results were still the same. I may have to bring this up to the 3ds max forums to get this resolved because I think something else is going on internally that needs to be addressed. Appreciate your help though.

[Scott Schroeder]

Whats the texture format? Is it a 16-bit tiff or png (or 16-32 bit exr for that matter) so it can hold higher ranges of white or is it a crappy 8-bit jpg that clamps everything at 1 and thus you lose your fine detailing?

 

Why not just leave everything as is? What's the point of rendering out this template when you can just copy the mapping over. Seems like a mouse hole that doesn't need to be explored.

[evanmichalski]

Whats the texture format? Is it a 16-bit tiff or png (or 16-32 bit exr for that matter) so it can hold higher ranges of white or is it a crappy 8-bit jpg that clamps everything at 1 and thus you lose your fine detailing?

 

Why not just leave everything as is? What's the point of rendering out this template when you can just copy the mapping over. Seems like a mouse hole that doesn't need to be explored.

 

Exr is the only one I haven't tested out yet, I might give that one a go, but as to the others I already tested the entire range of uncompressed formats.

 

And to answer your other question, personally for me I'm more efficient when I have a reference image template to fall back on which increases my efficiency immensely because I got tired of opening up an asset from months back to find the material in question, with a complex order of falloffs and composites, and then try to emulate it again in a new file because it is literally impossible to remember every detail from the countless projects I've done. It is simply easier for my brain and less time consuming to have a texture maps on standby which are categorized into folders for specularity, reflections, dirt, and I can immediately make changes on Photoshop or just add a color correction from there.

 

Time is my enemy.

[Chris MacDonald]

Disable filtering?

[evanmichalski]

Disable filtering?

 

Mind elaborating further, where is this located?