This Brazil rs glass rocks: how in C4D?

[Per-Anders]

it can be done in c4d... will come back laters and explain.. but gotta pick up the wife right now :)

[ThirdEye]

In mdme_sadie we trust :p

Still asking myself why you're not into Maxon... :rolleyes:

[derwolpertinger]

i know it is possible with the sla shaders. have you tried out something yet? try the sla banji volume shader. or create a basic c4d material with some sla shaders.
with fresnel in reflection and transparency. also put an fusion shader in the environment channel with an environment map of your choice at the bottom and a fresnel in the mask channel. it is good to put a slight noise shader in the specular colour channel, too. adds a lot of realism to it as i think.
i hope that helps a bit.
and plz just post some of your experiments here. so we can tell you lot more about it. :D

[Per-Anders]

Hi... i'm really sorry i couldn't get back sooner, but it's been a hectic day... and i'm really sorry but i've not had time to make an example, but really what derwolpertinger says pretty much sums it up... if you want to go for some added realism you can also use a seperate channel for front and back textures on the material, no colour or specular on the back, with a sharp cut off on the reflection frensel for the back (call this air) and the front with a low soft refleciton fresnel (call this material glass). in the air material also lower the index of refraction, you can get some very cool effects just by having a different IOR going into the material to the one coming out, so play around. if you want a more heavy glass with more faults add a very slight bump using a huge noise texture, and use the distance falloff shader to put a slight bit of colour into the glass depending on it's thickness. the scene you show uses GI which to you and I is radiosity, so play around with that a bit.

as for me not being "into" maxon... hell yeah i love c4d! i think it's great, of course i'm into maxon stuff... however that doesn't mean i think it's perfect... but the day will come. :)

anyhow i hope that these pointers give you some help.

[ThirdEye]

here's the first problem: i tried using GI as in the Brazil rs link above but I am in trouble. I used a floor object, a sky object and no lights. Glass is a simple revolved "L" smoothed profile (so lathe nurbs). It seems that light isn't able to pass through transparent glass and I don't know why. This is the same problem occurred to a friend using finalRender 1.1 in 3ds Max 4.2. I also tried increasing my radiosity paremeters but nothing happened... look at the jpeg (i know, bad AA, low settings etc. but this was only a try, I tried also higher settings but nothing changed with that black under the glass. This crappy prepass in the jpeg (accuracy 50%) took 21 mins on my dual PIII 1ghz!!! I can't think about increasing radiosity settings and putting that simple glass in a complex scene :rolleyes:

PS i tried also increasing the ray/shadow/reflection depth but nothing changed :shrug:

here's glass settings: only 1 material applied to the whole glass:

color: rgb 20-20-20%
transparency: ior 1,55 rgb 91-91-91%
reflection: 5% + bhodinut fresnel 15%
specular: plastic 11-61-0-0%
blinn illumination: generate 10% receive 100% saturation 0%

radiosity settings: accuracy 50-90% (i tried different settings, quite nothing changed), 3 bounces, 150 stochastic samples, res 8-50.

[Per-Anders]

I'm not sure what you mean about light not being able to "pass through" the glass... as this is what it appears to be doing here... maybe you mean the little white dots?... those are just the sample points if you let c4d finish the render (this is only half finished) they will dissapear and you'll be left with a nice radiosity render. there's only a diffuse shadow in this because there isn't any direct light (only light from the skydome). From what i see the light is passing through your glass object, although you've not got anything behind it or inside of it to show that... most objects will look flat on their own, they need to have things to reflect and to transmit before they gain any solidity.... oh yes and up the ray depth and shadow depth, also you can add caustics from your light to kill off some of the shadow underneath your glass (remember that glass does indeed cast a shadow and the shadow under your glass there isn't black as such, it's dark grey, which to me seems pretty correct... of course if it really bothers you then just lower the glass slightly so that the bottom goes through the ground...

[ThirdEye]

Thank you mdme but the problem was not the white samples dots. I left them in the pic to show their disposition and because I didn't want to wait till the renderpass finished. I don't think that the diffused grey under my glass is phisically correct (the Brazil rs pic says all about that) neither without direct lights, try using a real glass at morning outside your window. Now I'll make other tries... :shrug:

[Per-Anders]

truthfully you're not gettin ghtat drastic a different render from teh brazil one... but once again... i think the gist of what i was saying really boils down to; try putting a light in your scene.

all glass does create shadows, even in the morning light. but standard gi wont account for things such as caustics. the brazil render also has that shadow there, but because there's an area light in the scene as well (this isn't just relying on the skydome to create the lighting) the overall shadow isn't so clear... but if you want to see that the shadow is there, just look at the bottom of the water... the reflection of the glass interior hides it in the base...

so once again... put in a light, and you should be pleasantly surprised... if that's still not working for you try using the stochastic mode for radiosity.

[say-g]

brazil has support for c4d ???

[derwolpertinger]

no it doesn't support c4d. it is just a glass created with brazil in 3ds max.

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
Thank you mdme but the problem was not the white samples dots. I left them in the pic to show their disposition and because I didn't want to wait till the renderpass finished. I don't think that the diffused grey under my glass is phisically correct (the Brazil rs pic says all about that) neither without direct lights, try using a real glass at morning outside your window. Now I'll make other tries... :shrug:

Listne to Derwop and Mdme_sadie. The differences in your renders are due to set up and not the renderers themselves. differences in the renderers would lie more in things like colour, contrast and AA, not in capabilities (unless you are talking SSS or HDRI since we don't have those kinds of things) YOu'll notice the interior bottom does appear darker in his as well, but two reasons why its ot as harsh, he has a light as well as GI, and he has water in their too changing the IOR even more. as well the bottom would be brighter with some caustics which is what makes the most difference, especially in real life. Question is do you have time to render them for such a difference when most people are fooled anyways.

[Peoples]

Just thought to show my result of a quick glass test.

Settings for the glass:

Color: Brightness 0%
Transparency: Brightness 100% Refraction: 1.2
Bhodinut Fresnel From black to white
Reflection: Brightness 100%
Bhodinut Fresnel from white to black
Bump(real glass sometimes isn´t always perfect flat): 3DNoise scaled 1000- 2000%
Specular: 20,200,-40,20

[michaeli]

beautiful!:thumbsup:

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by Peoples
Just thought to show my result of a quick glass test.


Bump(real glass sometimes isn´t always perfect flat): 3DNoise scaled 1000- 2000%


This subtle bump can often make the difference between believable glass and not.

Good render which noise are you using?

[Peoples]

just the basic 3dnoise - did you mean that the bump makes it real or unreal?

[ThirdEye]

@People: Nice work!

I have a question for you all: real objects have a certain thickness, it seems to me that in CGI the render engine considers (for example) a glass as made of two surfaces and not as a whole object and doesn't consider the inside of the glass and the thickness of it: the shadows become 4 and not 2. Am I wrong?

ps Sorry for my english :rolleyes:

[LucentDreams]

MOre real typically, unless someone used a noise like sema . but even that if scaled large enough wouldlook better than no bump at all.

Thirdeye: Basically this all depends on you and the way you
a)model the object
b)shade it

Shaders like fresnel and buffy are great for making a material seem solid. for a glass the bes effect overallwould be to model the indis and outside, like doing a outline of an "L" and the latheing it and then using buffy and fresnel tomake the glas seem solid. It would be nive if we had true IOR range control but fresnel does a great job most of the time anyways.

[Per-Anders]

for that solidity effect try using distancefalloff which is free from maxons site, or if you want extra control and way more features go and buy praline from bhodinut. this should cover what you're talking about (for the most part) also play around with chanlum for more opaque and semi opaque objexts.

[ThirdEye]

@Kaiskai: when I model I obviously model the inside and the outside but I was asking myself... "All the space between the inside and the outside is considered full by the shader by the renderer or empty as if it was vacuum inside?" :shrug:

@mdme_sadie: i tried using distancefalloff but it seems a bit strange, i used bhodinut fresnel also in the transparency channel and it seems good...

Thank you all. :)

[derwolpertinger]

hey i just couldn't resist to experiment with glass and liquids. :D it is also he first time i've created some glass material and liquids cause my old comp was just too slow for so much transparency, refraction, caustics......so here it is:



http://www.derwolpertinger.de/cgpics/redglass.jpg



so what do you think?
it was really fun to create this cause i learned a lot about things i yet did not have the chance to play with. btw. i used buffy in the specular colour channel. that really adds solidity to glass stuff!;)

[MJV]

Originally posted by derwolpertinger
so what do you think?
it was really fun to create this cause i learned a lot about things i yet did not have the chance to play with. btw. i used buffy in the specular colour channel. that really adds solidity to glass stuff!;)

Looks very nice. :thumbsup:

[LucentDreams]

good stuff, and the kiwi is really nice as well.

[Per-Anders]

yeah that kiwi looks yummy :) nice work:beer:

[kiwi]

Thats excellent,very nice indeed :thumbsup:



Stu.

[neilyb]

Very good!:thumbsup:

[ThirdEye]

This is my best glass, a scene of a pair of months ago. I noticed another thing: it seems that C4D renders a glass object as a pair of surfaces, not as a volumic object: reflections and shadows become 4 and not 2... I don't know if it is possible to obtain a correct result even with distancefalloff or bhodinut... Now I have to test bhodinut buffy, I put it on the specular color channel as derwolpertinger said but nothing changed... uhmmm :rolleyes:

[Grey]

HAySUS thirdeye!

Everytime I see one of your photoreal images I"m stunned. That could have been my grandmother's kitchen, I swear!

[Peoples]

In search of the perfect glass..... This is my latest attempt to create glass. The modeling part seems to be quite tricky - I´m not satisfied with the bottom, it doesn´t look real. Btw - no lights, no radiosity, no autoligth!! The scene is "illuminated" only by reflections of white color!! Strange.........

What´s the best way to create liquid in the bottle? I´ve tried some techniques with booleans and deleting polys but I need to learn the BEST way - so help me out plz.

[ThirdEye]

@Grey: Thank you very much! :thumbsup:
@Peoples: Do you mind sharing your glass settings or the scene? For liquids I suggest lathe nurbs

[Per-Anders]

ok maybe it owuld help if you knew what buffy was... put simple buffy is white on the front facing polygons and black on the rear facing polygons... this means that for instance you can get rid of internal reflections (even though these do occur in glass, otherwise you'd not be able to use prisms in cameras) by simple using buffy in the fusion alpha and a light fresnel on top with a sharp cutoff fresnell underneath.


using buffy on the specular colour channel helps as it gets rid of any specular highlights on the interior polys (i.e. the back facing polys).

Personally i prefer to use two materials, one on the front polys and one on the rear as you have a lot more control over the surface that way, not to mention it's very easy to turn on and off specular highlights reflections, colour etc on the back polys without having to go through shader trees.

use buffy on the following channels for best results, colour, diffusion, specularity and reflection. (though if you use my method you don't need to bother.

[michaeli]

http://www.c4d-treff.de/galerie/bilder/Diverses/2674.jpg

I found this pic in www.c4d-treff.de, I think it is one of the best glass material pics i've ever seen. I don't know how to achieve this effect, can u give some advice?

if you can't see the pic, you can click this link.

http://www.c4d-treff.de/galerie/grossansicht.php4?currentpage=1&sort=punkte&id=2674&rubrik=11

[ThirdEye]

Am I wrong or in the SLA manual there's no mention about buffy? :shrug:

[derwolpertinger]

you are right third eye! :(

[MJV]

.

[LucentDreams]

MV's is definitely one of the best I have evr seen in C4D. Definitely look at it and see why his is so effective.

I've had it downloaded for quite a while now.

[ThirdEye]

Here's my last try, I noticed a thing in C4D engine: when using refractions there's no attenuation for them, they're very visible, you can render a glass object without any light nor GI, and they make opaque the material... they make it seem like plastic. It would be a great thing if we were allowed to map with a ramp also refraction channel and not only transparency or reflection (like in Maya for example). Anyway in my scene there's image based lighting [HDRI (?)] + 1 area light

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
Here's my last try, I noticed a thing in C4D engine: when using refractions there's no attenuation for them, they're very visible, you can render a glass object without any light nor GI, and they make opaque the material... they make it seem like plastic. It would be a great thing if we were allowed to map with a ramp also refraction channel and not only transparency or reflection (like in Maya for example). Anyway in my scene there's image based lighting [HDRI (?)] + 1 area light

Thats what I was saying about IOR. I know away to fake this in C4D but it is time consuming, and still not accurate Basically creat multiple materials of your glass, but use different Refraction settings, and then use fresnel in alpha as well, this allows you to mix multiple glass materials together, but you'd have to use a lot of them to realy get a nice smooth attenuation. if you only used two it would appear fairly odd. five seems to produce more believable results in old tests i did, back in R6 though. Have no renders for you, but do try it.

[ThirdEye]

It seems a bit trivial but it may work... Thank you very much..
Oh here's a rough scene with GI and a spotlight, it seems nothing changed about the diffused grey under the glass also with a 100% bright spotlight as you can see :shrug:

[neilyb]

I think to remove the grey areas you would have to incorporate caustics also!

[ThirdEye]

Already tried... :rolleyes:

[neilyb]

Have you tried washing the glass incase the bottom is dirty?:wavey:

[ThirdEye]

LOOOL! :scream:
Now i'm testing bhodinut volume shaders like banji. It has controls over solid objects and internal reflection. Hope it works. :bounce:

[ThirdEye]

Banji controls solid objects and internal reflection very well but... It seems that ior control is a bit strange... look at the pic, Banji to the left, normal C4D shading to the right... where are my refraction with banji?? Useless to say that i've tried tons of settings for ray depth.

[derwolpertinger]

@ thirdeye: try increasing the generate caustic values for the glass and the receive caustics value in the floor material dialog.

...btw , when building up my cocktail glass scene i wondered a few hours why there are no caustics appearing on the ground and why the scene is so dark although i used radiosity. so i increased all the settings for both radiosity and caustics until i found out that i had no material applied to the floor! :insane: :argh:

[ThirdEye]

Very strange that the problem was lack of material... C4D applies the standard material (which receaves caustics) to untextured object..

Anyway here the problem is not related to caustics, I tried them too but they don't influence all the zone under the glass obviously, the problem IMHO is related to the renderer itself (ps. finalRender stage-0 had this problem too) because I tried also the demo versions of Max with Brazil rs free and brazil's behavior is correct (with addictional light or even with the simple skydome)

[ThirdEye]

here's the brazil rs glass (skydome only)

[Per-Anders]

try using stochastic sampling in the radiosity dialog box... set the depth to 2 or 3... this might help.

[ThirdEye]

Already tried, nothing changed apart from waiting time :hmm:

I think this is a problem of the GI renderer, I know there's the same problem with finalRender stage-0 for 3DS Max, it seems they've resolved it with stage-1 and finalRender glass material. I hope for R8 Advanced Render :rolleyes:

[VSLX]

I rarely use SLA in creation of standard glass...

I'm posting these old renders once again:
http://www.vslxperience.com/renders/test_vsl.jpg
http://www.vslxperience.com/renders/voda.jpg

You need just the regular parameters... but the exact index of refraction... and it depends on the type od the glass.
Is it crystal, or whatever...

I will have to dig the document that containt all the information on this...

But maybe the most important part are the caustics and the light... as welll as the angle of camera...

[ThirdEye]

I'm afraid VSLX, i dloaded from bhodinut forum your banji presets, they were good but didn't help me; basically i used the same settings in my GI image with blue background. Caustics don't influence the scene about my problem. I tried them, I tried stochastic mode GI, I tried different iors, I tried multiple materials... I'm close to a very good glass but the GI problem remains and I'm trying to understand if I make some mistakes or if the GI renderer fails

[ThirdEye]

I noticed a thing, it can be useful... The main difference between creating a glass with Banji volume shader and normale C4D material editor is the possibility to use the fresnel options in C4D normal editor. Banji doesn't allow to use fresnel checkbox in transparency and this explains the lack of refractions in my previous comparation. Strange that a so good volume shader lacks in a similar feature... :shrug:

[LucentDreams]

the fresnel shader is built into it, thats why.

[ThirdEye]

I believe you kai, you're certainly more expert than me but I noticed a strange fact: I made a flute, I duplicated it, then mapped the first with normal C4D glass, the second with banji trying to mantain the same features (you know, same colour, same opacity using channels in the normal C4D glass material, no reflections, no specular...). There were many differences in the behavior of the 2 materials, so I unchecked the fresnel checkbox in the normal shader et voilà: they were almost IDENTICAL! :surprised

So if fresnel is built in why banji behaves as it wasn't? :shrug:

[ThirdEye]

I found a trick for avoiding that diffused grey under the glass: render with GI the scene without the glass material, then re-render with glass but reusing the old GI solution, it works perfectly. Here's the latest pic: :)

[LucentDreams]

Ahh sorry for misunderstanding, I thought you meant Bhodinut fresnel and not the Standard material checkbox. Sorry 'bout that. Seems to me one should be able to create a setting in Banji to match the setting in the Standard fresnel, but never tried. sounds like a little pet project to try sometime. But it is another reason to add to my ist of resons to use Channel shaders in C4D materials rather than the default bhodinut shaders.

Very nice render, and cool workaround too.

[ThirdEye]

always adding something to reach the perfect glass (now it has been the turn of bump)... Now I have to lower opacity even if my transparency is already 100% :rolleyes:

[michaeli]

very beautiful work, near perfect!

[say-g]

that last pic is sexy!

this may be abit off topic, but how do u use hdri in c4d, ive got a few hdri images, but c4d wont recognize them, or will it ?

[Peoples]

Hey!

Nice one!! Is that now Banji or channels with sla? I'm also searching the perfect glass but how do you get that solid look? I've tried dozens of setting and tips in this thread but I get that weird reflection of the back polys and the glass doesn't look solid. Instead the two surfaces and the space between them is clearly visible...... Do you model your glass spline very thin? Your glass rocks!!!! Hints plz.....:drool: :applause:

[say-g]

try buffy... mdme wrote a mini overview of its use

heres the link http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21428

[ThirdEye]

@say-g: http://www.rain.org/~msavard/hdri/Articles/UsingHDRIs.html

@Peoples: I didn't use Banji, it has a strange behaviour with fresnel. My glass: 2 materials (one for the front and one for the back) the first with normal glass features (but without the fresnel checkbox activated in the transparency channel), the second with lower reflection, lower color, lower index of refraction.

[say-g]

:bounce: :beer: thanks 3rdeye

lol @ hdr shop eula - 'I certify that I am not a national or a resident of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Serbia, Taliban-controlled portions of Afghanistan or any other country subject to U.S. trade sanctions, nor, to the best of my knowledge, have I been designated a Specially Designated National, Blocked Person, or otherwise been denied export-related privileges by the United States Government.'

[bjotto]

Here's a test I did:
fresnal in transperancy and reflektion
buffy in specular color
something like 20 lights
a background with an image set to 200% in lumiance

[bjotto]

:hmm: do anyone know how to get rid of those artifacts in the shadow?

[Per-Anders]

within soft shadows it's usually something to do with the dmap bias... (the filtering on the soft shadow) try increasing the shadow resolution, and different settings for the sharpness, also increase the shadow depth, as this sometimes helps with this kind of effect.

[say-g]

hmmm, ill have to try that, i get the 'blinds' effect from my frosted glass

[Per-Anders]

the other thing to look out for is if you have blur on the transparency or the reflection... it can do weird things to the shadow (there's anotehr thread here somewhere) so maybe switch transparency off in the shadow settings and just use a lighter colour shadow + caustics... (might work) otherwise render one with no blurring and composite with image with blurring.

[Peoples]

Latest one - tried two materials as Thirdeye suggested - although the material applied to the back polys don't have refraction activated - I tested it with many different IOR's but allways the result was too "multiplied" and strange unreal strong refrations.........rendered with radiosity.

Comments??

[Peoples]

another one with water in the glasses - this one rendered in three minutes on a G4/400/320MB with one parallel light without shadow. No radiosity.

[michaeli]

Beautigul work!:thumbsup:

[derwolpertinger]

yeah, nice work peoples! :thumbsup: i especially like the one with the water in the glasses. but maybe it would look better if you increase the caustics a bit.

[Peoples]

I didn't use caustics - I'll render another one with caustics..

[Peoples]

well - no caustics here either, I tried hdri fake with this one. I think we folks have conquered at least the level of realism with glass that the Brazil rs picture has in the beginning of this thread. I have learned a lot - we need more threads like this on various subjects or what say you??

:wavey: :wavey:

[say-g]

yer, sounds like a good idea, tho if u look at it thats wat we do here anyway. but still a good idea.

how about a thread on sheilds (st sw etc, each show has there own 'version') that would be a worthy topic of disscusion I think.

just an idea :rolleyes:

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by say-g
yer, sounds like a good idea, tho if u look at it thats wat we do here anyway. but still a good idea.

how about a thread on sheilds (st sw etc, each show has there own 'version') that would be a worthy topic of disscusion I think.

just an idea :rolleyes:

sure good idea, but don't expect help fromthe "ANTI STAR TREK ANTI STARWARS do something original" fan club like me. I'll help some people learn how to make better glass and such, I'll help people learn better model techniques, but I'll be darned if I help anyone make the USS enterprise, I love TNG and and starwars of course, but their done deals, Make your own ship with your own sheilds and your own weapons, why must it be some sort oflight saber or photon torpedo,

I mean you no offense personally Say-g I'm just saying why is it everyone feels the need to recreate instead of doing something themselves.

It like a lot of poss in the bhodinut forums (one reason I unfortunately go there less and post less) is so many people posting examples by someone like say Jeremy W or someone else and say how did they do this cool effect I want to make this to. Jeremy makes these as his own experiment, and treats them as art, somone else sees them simply as a file that should be available for download so they can copy his work. least people can do is figure it out , then at least its a sort of tribute to what they have achieved inspiring you to do the same.



..*ahem* sorry for coming off so harshly and for the rant, just had a really offensive email today regarding my shades of cel, and their lack of availability right now, and why the second pack isn't out yet either. And then they say and I quote "how am i supposed to COPY an image like your cool tiger image without your preset files?" Man oh man what a way to tick people off. not that this has anything to do with the topic anymore or really relate to the Starwars shields thing either, just needed to rant
:annoyed:

[say-g]

yer i dont take offence to it cos i didnt want to copy them, just using as an example cos wen i was writing it i thought 'hey ppl might think sword n sheild type of sheild, then i would look like a real doofus )

but yer dosnt have to be a sheild, could be a lightsaber or proton torpedo! :P j/k


another idea, we could try to make a shockwave (on land inside a building or whereever just not in space) that distorts the surounding light aorund it btu u cant actually see it, save the refracting...

lol i dunno

[LucentDreams]

now that one I like (could be i space as well, don't get me wrong about space themes, jsut think they should be original space concpets) That would be a cool thing to see, and has uses in many types of things.

[say-g]

aye, but unless there is a ship / nebulae some kind of bg you wouldnt really see the effect.

[Per-Anders]

hmmm... for my two cents on this. you only learn by emulation. there's no such thing as originality really, just evolution, and mostly it's through the mistakes made in creating a copy we come to something different. People put too much emphasis on originality without really understanding what it is, and then they fall flat on their face when asked to come up with something truly original, cos you can always trace an origin back to something else, some influence, and if you have an influence, then even on a subconcious level you're copying. You can't work in a bubble, after all glass has been done a million times, the wine glass, the chrome teapot or ball on a chequered background, that doesn't mean there aren't important lessons to be learnt by doing them again. If you model a human head... is it just jumping on the bandwaggon?... or is it an interpretation, and therefore just your particular work of art? In the same way hasn't the nude been done before? But i think few would argue that lifedrawing is anything but useful to even the most seasoned artist, and few would dare to argue that "It's unoriginal, so therefore I'm not going to give any help on this matter", though of course in the sixties there were a few who did... didn't see that much situationist work being very original either come to think about it, though it was a better time for writers rather than artists (who also go through the very same hackneyed concepts time and time again).

I've not seen an original peice of artwork in the 3D genre since Tron. I haven't seen any evidence for any original animation since Fantasia. I've only seen evolution.

People have to start out from what they know, then progress and evolve their own ideas by basically making mistakes, but finding that they like the mistakes, and by playing around with these mistakes, mixing in other influences (or to put it another way, copying something else).

The other thing to remember is that especially here in these forums there are very few peices that are going to be anyone Master Peices, especially things in tutorial threads, or "how do i..." threads. It's just learning, that's all. I think it's a good and instructive lesson to go and make a model of the USS Enterprise, I actually think it's just as instructive to have a good model that someone else has made and for you to learn how to light it yourself for your own scene, or for you to learn how to animate it, or for you to think of your own ways of using or abusing that same thing. If someone offers a scene, you don't have to use it by just pulling it apart to see how it works. It's almost better for someone to abuse it, take what they want, after all some things will be obvious to some people and they're just not going to bother with, and for others it may be too complex but there will be other things in the scene that they can understand, or maybe they can come back to the more complex parts of the scene later.

Everything we do is influenced, if you ever do anything that could be described as retro, then it's an obvious copy of a style or someone elses work. I can't think of a single 3d artist who's portfolio isn't full of all the clichés out there. Spinning logos, comets going through buildings/over seas, rolling seas, bryce like landscapes, fast flyovers of cities, and through tunnels with object flying past, space ships, standard explosions, shockwaves, wine glasses/still lifes, bodyless heads laughing/etc... not a single original peice of work. And that goes for fine artists too... someone feel they have the gile to tell me that Francis Bacon is original? elol, if anyone does then you need to read your arts history a little more to see him as just another evolution.

It doesn't really matter what you do, it's how you interpret what you do, it's all been done before but that's not a problem, for those who wish to take it seriously learning to copy someone elses work is in fact vital if you really want to get anywhere in this industry. Because if you do want to get up there, then you will have to be able to copy others work perfectly, so that it fits in with the style of whatever huge project you may be working on, with god knows however many other artists busy working to the same standard to make a consistent thing, but that's called earning your crust.

Most people I know never set out to have an original idea, they just one day having sat down and copied as much as they can from other people just have a though that says, what about this? Or wouldn't this be a cool thing? Or they just say, I'll take this thing... but to an extreme. Then they evolve something for themselves. Inspiration hits but it's not something that comes to them cos they thought... hmm... i have to think of something original here, it just happens naturally, and usually after a long time not doing a single original work... but that's fine and good, creativity is after all also a learned thing (though it's harder for those who are more autistic, rememeber here that everyone has autism to a degree, but anyone can learn to think in a so called creative manner).

So I think... good! Build a forcefield, you never know when you might need that effect or a similar one, it's a good starting point for building planetary atmosphere, or bubbles underwater, or bizarre giant spheres of water (see ffx) or shockwave effects, or certain forms of explosion, or lighting effects in certain atmostpheres, or matrix bullets, or electronic glows, or underwater effects, or a million and one other things that you could learn from just knowing how to make these effects, and how they work. You want to make the USS enterprise? That would be great! It's a great lesson in Nurbs and poly modelling for beginners, not to mention the lighting rigs and animation effects that go with that. Go to http://www.menithings.com to see what he has to say about it when he was working on Startrek, he's got some great hints and tips that can be used in all sorts of scenes in pretty much any package (although he uses lightwave). Even if you don't think you'll get anything personally out of such an excercise... give it a go, you might be surprised, and it might give you a few new ideas to take it somewhere else.

[LucentDreams]

Never seen an original piece of animation since Fantasia? Ever Heard of UPA, they did far more for animation than anyone seems to credit, everything nowadays in telivision is influenced morefrom UPA than Disney.


Ahem back on topic, Don't getme wrong, true there is not really much for true originality, but originality also involves finding new ways of using old things and techiniques, as you suggested use it for bubbles or something, why niot mak the bubble instead of the darn enterprise force field. You'll notice most CGart you find on the web is one of threemain topics, Knights and elves/fairies, Starwars, or startrek. I mean look at the brazil renders, how m,any chrome balls can one look at before they are no longer impressive. Then someone discovers HDRI, but how many HDRI images can we see done, along with fakes before its no longer considered a skill even but rather just anouther boring little rip off thing. I mean if you want to do a spaceship great, but do your own spaceship, if it has two cylinder things that are used as engines like enterpirse fine but still make you own ship. Influence is one thing, copying is another.

[Per-Anders]

Many things are influential... that doesn't make them original, the Brazil renderer is influential for instance. UPA weren't original though... they just took some illustrative ideas that had been floating around in the graphics world for some time before then, and animated in that style... and it wasn't exactly original thought, concept or execution... just as Lilo & Stitch is hardly original for going back to using Guache & Watercolour for their backgrounds, the overall style of the characterisation smacks a lot of Calvin & Hobbs and a whole heap of other influences, and Calvin and Hobbes isn't exactly original either in style when it comes down to it... there isn't such a thing as original... only origin, it's as well to bear that in mind.

If annoys me slightly when poeple go on about originality... it's like history never happened, and placing so much emphasis on this... hell the world is full of nude studies, doesn't stop Euan Uglow (or me). It just smacks of amaturism and arrogance to talk about being original and place emphasis on it as if it were as simple as making a cup of coffee, it's interpretation and evolution. Everyone has to learn, and if you're so jaded to the world that only the original has beauty, then don't look at nature, or any work or art. We all have something to learn by copying a Michealangelo sculpture... hell I know I've got a huge ammount to learn by copying that, and yet it's something that's been done a million times before, one day I may try, right now I don't have the impetus in that direction, but I'm certainly not ruling out trying. And I wont begrudge anyone producing another David, cos each time they do they inevitably put in a little bit of themselves into the process.

I've seen people try to emulate the simplest things and come out with twenty different approaches and twenty different images. And that's great! Although in a production workflow perhaps that wouldn't be so great... but that's just the reason to get better at it for production work, and as an individual to learn completely different ways to working... and to share them. Never begrudge those learning. I've seen enough fantasy artwork for seven lifetimes on this board... but it still fascinates me cos each one is different even though they're aiming for perfect copies.

I'm not going to be snobbish enough to say I wont give poeple help if they ask, because it's something too simple, or because it's something I've seen too much of.

If it's a moral decision, then I understand, but just because it's a basic, or unoriginal... that's just foolish hard headedness. I know that by helping others do apparently simple things... i'm going to learn a hell of a lot myself, and I might even get inspired to do something else.

I wont begrudge those who try... surely it's worse to not try because you've seen it all before. I mean... I see buildings every day... damn this city is full of the blasted things, if only architects would be a little bit more original, you won't catch me helping anyone who might want to make a model of a building in 3d... those damn flythroughs... must have seen them a million times, they're everywhere, all over the web. LOL Comeon, you gotta laugh!

If you choose to not pass on information I guess that really is your own decision, after all it does take time to do that, so that's reasonable, but please don't put down anyone who might be a real beginner for it... anything we do will always be uber simple to someone else. But i'd hate it if that other person were to be like "Nah I'm not going to give you any help! What you're doing is just so passe!". I think we all have something to learn from each other.

You have a lot to give, you're very skilled and have a great deal of knowledge. It's up to you if you want to share any of that, and that's reasonable. But please if you have a hint or tip and it's pertinent to anything... even something uber simple or passe... don't keep it back. We want to hear from you Kaiskai, and you never know you may get to influence poeple in all sorts of good ways (and yes i agree there will always be those that just donwload a scene and get nothing from it... but they will be fairly rare, and it's worth it for those that download a scene and get a whole heap from it, and give back in some way).

[AdamT]

You've got to remember that 3D, like painting, sculpture, weaving ... whatever, is both a craft and an art. Intelligent people disagree on this issue, but I'm of the school that believes you need to master the craft before you can transcend it. You have to be able to create that image inside your head, and if you can't create what's tangible--things you can see and touch--you certainly won't be able to do that.

I also happen to think that fine craftsmanship is inherently beautiful: a desk by a master carpenter, a hand-tailored suit, the inner workings of a swiss watch, a hand-tooled saddle, a detailed and well-textured 3d model. None of it's original or "art", but nonetheless it's admirable and a pleasure to observe.

[MJV]

Originally posted by Kaiskai
Then someone discovers HDRI, but how many HDRI images can we see done, along with fakes before its no longer considered a skill even but rather just anouther boring little rip off thing.

I agree. To me, HDRI is little more than a new method (albeit an interesting one) of displaying a photograph. It says as much about the photo as anything else. It's a useful tool for sure and probably a lot more satisfying if you're the one who took the photo, but otherwise pretty much like you said, a boring little rip off thing.

As far as copying other people's scenes or style goes, I'm sure it could be useful in a learning context, but I've never wanted to and never have copied anyone else's work. But on the other hand some musicians like to play their own stuff, and some are perfectly happy playing others.

[ThirdEye]

Originally posted by Peoples
well - no caustics here either, I tried hdri fake with this one. I think we folks have conquered at least the level of realism with glass that the Brazil rs picture has in the beginning of this thread. I have learned a lot - we need more threads like this on various subjects or what say you??

:wavey: :wavey:


Not to be harsh but I don't think that level could be conquered with C4D. We don't have real control over solid transparent objects yet and we don't have any control over refractions. We can't adjust refraction level and we can't map a the refraction channel yet. Brazil seems to be a step ahead in raytracing. :hmm:

[Claudio72]

Hi to all,
since I've spent many hours in a real looking glass(w/o the aid of this thread) I would like to share with you one of my last rendering.

http://www.crosio.com/images/glass_pizzo.jpg

Thank's to mdme_ that signal me this old thread.
Sorry to bring it in life, it's quite long, but I don't want to start a new one.
I hope you like it and if you're interested in testing it you can download it here.

with pizzo (http://www.crosio.com/images/glass_pizzo.zip)
without pizzo (http://www.crosio.com/images/glass_wopizzo.zip)

p.s.: How do you call the center table pizzo in english?

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by Claudio72
p.s.: How do you call the center table pizzo in english?

Hey looking very nice I like the gold trim as well, and on the subject matter of the white thing there are a few names for it, I usually call them doiley's

[peXel]

here some glassimages, which i have done



www.3dluvr.com/pexel/Downloaddateien/bols-flasche.html (http://www.3dluvr.com/pexel/Downloaddateien/bols-flasche.html)

http://www.3dluvr.com/pexel/Downloaddateien/campari.html

[fxgogo]

Like the Campari especially. There is a nice sense of weight in the glass. cool tint aswell.

[handige_harrie]

Image I did yesterday:
http://www.renderosity.com/photos/GAL_200302/GalleryThumb337383.jpg (http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=337383&Start=1&Artist=handige%5Fharrie&ByArtist=Yes)
click for 1000x1800

Older image:
http://www.renderosity.com/photos/GAL_200211/GalleryThumb288581.jpg (http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=288581&Start=1&Artist=handige%5Fharrie&ByArtist=Yes)
click for 1024x768

[ThirdEye]

The 1st image is maybe the best C4D glass i've seen so far, do u mind sharing your settings? The other pic isn't aything special, the usual C4D glass with no control over refraction :hmm:

[LucentDreams]

The second one is missing a shadow n the glass. The first one is realy nice, needs higher AA on it, and second, for those black artifacts you mention in C4D, thats user error, increase your ray depth and the black artifact should disappear. of course the limit is a little low

[handige_harrie]

Thnx :)

Both materials don't use special techniques like splitting back and front nor use SLA.

1st image:
glass:
color: black; brightness = 20%
tranparency: 97.5%; n=1.333; Fresnel ticked
water:
color: black; brightness = 0%
transparency: 96.5%; n=1.333; Fresnel ticked

So really nothing special, unfortunately you get black artifacts.

Scene uses a skylight with stochastic radiosity (with waaay too high settings :scream:)

2nd image:
glass:
color: black; brightness = 22%
transparency: 98%; n=1.52; Fresnel ticked
reflection: black; 20%

Also nothing special, but I found the result with this material better than with SLA. I didn't try splitting front and back.

Scene uses an HDRI-image for the reflection, 5 lights and Caustics.

I have a better glass material on my wish list ;)

[ThirdEye]

The settings are really simple. Probably a good modeling and a good stochastic GI made the rest :thumbsup:

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by Kaiskai
The second one is missing a shadow n the glass. The first one is realy nice, needs higher AA on it, and second, for those black artifacts you mention in C4D, thats user error, increase your ray depth and the black artifact should disappear. of course the limit is a little low

Getting a nice shadow with such high transparency AND caustics (which illumintes the table, especially under the foot) is hard. I faked it in the first image. Might try it for the second one also.

I know it needs higher AA, I rendered it in this high resolution to scale it down afterwards in PS. But I found that a lot of fine details in the water were gone if you scaled it down. So I didn't.
Settings are:
Best; min=1x1; max=4x4. Rendering took > 4 hours, so I'm not rerendering I hope you understand ;)

Black artifacts are not caused by low Ray Depth :shrug:. The picture is exacly the same if you set Ray Depth to 6 or to 50. I used 10 for the image. (I set it to 100 for testing, but when I looked after rendering it was set back to 50, must be the maximum)

[ThirdEye]

21 ray depth 19 reflection depth 19 shadows depth, these are the ideal settings i found in XL7 after a month of glass research, and yes, my glass is really different when i lower the ray depth. I hope it helps :wavey:

[handige_harrie]

You are right, i get less black. I am trying out some settings right now.

But I don't get it :surprised I don't have any reflections in my materials. And no lights; no shadows.

Anyway, it works :)

[ThirdEye]

I've never seen a real non-reflective glass with a fresnel fx ;)

[Per-Anders]

fresnel in the transparency channel gives you the true fresnel effect. essentially when the ior changes between different substances at a certian angle the light gets reflected, this is the effect that makes prisms such good mirrors in cameras, and is also why from one viewpoint a puddle reflects the clouds and sky, but form closer by you can see straight through it.

the fresnel checkbox gives you that effect.

BhodiNUT Fresnel is a slightly different thing, a lot of people get confused by that. BhodiNUT Fresnel just gives you a color based on the incidence angle of the surface to the viewer (real fresnel is dependant on the Index of Refraction and is different internally to externally).

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
I've never seen a real non-reflective glass with a fresnel fx ;)

I just learned something :rolleyes: :beer:

But what reflection exactly do you get with fresnel? I thought it just controlled refraction.

-> I get it now, after I read your post mdme_sadie :) (I didn't see it before I posted; both posted in same minute)

[ThirdEye]

Originally posted by handige_harrie
I just learned something :rolleyes: :beer:

But what reflection exactly do you get with fresnel? I thought it just controlled refraction.

I meant Bhodinut fresnel shader. Put it into the reflection channel, you'll see nice results

[AdamT]

I believe the native fresnel effect provides for internal reflections, but I could be wrong.

[Claudio72]

ehy thirdeye, I've just seen your trinisica recreation of the blue absorbing glass objects in the renderosity top20.

Is there a thread here report the main step you followed to get such result? Do you share the scene file?

I think you did a great work!! How many times to render the scene?

[ThirdEye]

transparency: 60-74-98 (rgb) ior 2 fresnel checkbox activated
reflection: 100% bhodinut fusion (multiply in the fusion setting) with buffy and bhodinut fresnel.
caustics activated.
AA best sinc filter
raydepth 6
reflection depth 2
shadow depth 6
The rendertime is slow because of the blurred reflections on the floor, otherwise it's pretty fast

[Claudio72]

I'm making some experiments..............thank's for sharing experience

did you left the fresnel settings untouched?

6-2-6 is the default I usually change it for glasses


what about the sinc filter? what's this?

[ThirdEye]

sinc filter: the best AA filter we have, search it in the manual for a better explanation

fresnel settings: only the fresnel checkbox in the transparency channel

i usually use a 21-19-19 setting for glasses but i needed contrast and black areas inside the crystal so i leaved those settings low.

[Claudio72]

The only manual I have is v7; is this sinc filter present?

I ment the bn fresnel inside the fusion, you left it unchanged(you know, the grey scale)

thank's again

[ThirdEye]

yeah i left that fresnel unchanged, the problem is I don't have the scene anymore because i made it with the demo version of C4D :hmm:

[Claudio72]

I can't find anything about that anti aliasing finter you're talking about before, but, never mind, I don't want to bother you anymore!




p.s.: It seems you have the memory of Data(TNG) to remind the transparency settings so clear!! :scream: :thumbsup:

[ThirdEye]

When you can only use a demo at home because the R8 student version isn't available yet here and you don't have the possibility to save anything but you make something good with materials the only way to don't lose anything is to write down everything ;)

[Claudio72]

that's a wise suggestion dude!





I'm still experimenting.............

[dmg]

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
... anything is to write down everything ;)

hmm, i'd prefer screenshots instead... ;-)

[LucentDreams]

Originally posted by dmg
hmm, i'd prefer screenshots instead... ;-)

yeah but what about a material that uses 4 channels, thats four screenshots. easier to just write it down;)

[handige_harrie]

Originally posted by dmg
hmm, i'd prefer screenshots instead... ;-)
That reminds me of something I did lately...check my fabric material topic ;)

[Claudio72]

ehy third_, I dind't found anything about the antialiasing your' talking about.........do you have some usefull link to put us in the right way?

[ThirdEye]

Go in the AA panel of your render settings, you should find sinc in the filter menu (still image by default) :wavey:

[Claudio72]

.......ops...........never touched that setting.......

could you spend some words in describing the difference between?

[ThirdEye]

* copied&pasted from the manual *

Still Image
The default filter. It ensures sharp edges and is best suited to still images.
For crisp, sharp stills, keep in mind that you may need to change the Sampling setting of materials.
Although the default Sampling setting, MIP, is a good choice for materials on objects that extend
towards the horizon — such as a floor — for things like bottle labels you’ll get a much sharper
picture by changing Sampling to Square, Alias 1, Alias 2 or Alias 3. However, avoid using these
Sampling types when animating, since they are too sharp for animation (the slight blurring of MIP or
SAT sampling is essential to prevent flicker).
Animation
Blurs the antialiasing to produce smooth results and prevent flicker for film/video.
Blend
Enables you to customize the softness of the antialiasing. Enter a value from 0% to 100% into the
Softness box (see also ‘Softness’, below).
Sinc
Produces better antialiasing than Still Image but takes longer to render.
Area
Calculates an area (defined by Softness) around the current pixel that is used for the antialiasing.
Cone
Set the size of this cone filter using Softness. Still Image, Animation, Blend and Sinc all produce better
antialiasing than Cone.
Catmull
Produces lower-quality antialiasing than Still Image, Animation, Blend and Sinc.

:wavey:

[Claudio72]

since it's copy and pasted from the manual I dont read it......... ;)

I've the original manual in my bookshelf, I think I've never opened it!! I know I may look stupid but I born programmer so keep the manuals far from me!!


ahahahahahahhahah I'm joking, this is the essence of the c&p:
"Sinc
Produces better antialiasing than Still Image but takes longer to render."

[LucentDreams]

For sharp textures I typicaly use Circle, and I have Sinc as my default filter for AA.

[Claudio72]

my wip attempt at the noctua beer........

http://www.crosio.com/images/noctua_beer_small.jpg

[Kubik]

Cool glass:
color: R:G:B:Br: 100%
diffusion: 19% unable specular
transp: bhodiNUT Fresnel from very lightgrey to whight, refraction: 1.52 + fresnel
reflaction: R:G:B:BR: 100% , bhodiNUT Fresnel from grey to black
Specular: 12%, 100%, 0%, 25%

[MJV]

Here is my best glass to date. The recipe is on deepshade.

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=114214&Start=19&Artist=mv&ByArtist=Yes

[flingster]

holy sh** thats very impressive...mjv
you really got that down...got that antique quality of old glass....i think maybe its to do with the method of making them...that dark quality....always looks different to that mass production stuff....what is also very cool is the engraving...how did ya do that...and manage to pull it off...so slick.
what can i say...very impressive....:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[comanche]

Interesting thread :-)
Here's a glass test I set up back in Sept 2001:

http://www.calmbach.com/demo/glas1neu.jpg

The final setting are somewhere in the deep of my HD, but that's the scene I get started with:

http://www.calmbach.com/demo/glaeser.zip

cheers,
comanche

[brammelo]

Hi guys,

I haven't re-read the whole thread (it's a very long thread), so I am not sure wether this has already been mentionned or not.

The thing is that, to avoid double speculars, there was talk about using the Bhodinut buffy shader in the diffuse channel. With the right settings this eliminated the double speculars we so often see in CG-images. It's one of the important material tips I got in this forum.

Today I was browsing around, and came accross a tutorial that explained realistic glass and the according settings in C4D. Funny thing is: the guy who wrote the tutorial didn't use buffy to solve double speculars. He simply switched the illumination model from phong to blinn. Worked like a charm.

The tutorial can be found at:

http://members.shaw.ca/jimht03/

As I said: it might have been mentionned before, so I am just posting this in case it hasn't.

Cheers,
BaRa

[Kirl]

Hey, that's pretty neat, thanks...! Puzzles me why Maxon doesn't propose these things in the first place.

It's said they made this program... :shrug:

[iladi]

this is my try on glass

http://www.interactiv.rdsor.ro/pictures/mansion%20houseOK.jpg

[prayas]

Mr. Calmbach.
Welcome another guru to the talk.

This preset rocks even with no nice drink on da rocks in it.
Are we allowed to use this preset free. Do you like to have credits under every image using it. :) Best glas i have seen so far.

P..:

[flingster]

this thread has been alive so long......i never really thought about the title...but IMHO.

C4D glass rocks.....do we need brazil...i don't think so.......:buttrock:

[ThirdEye]

C4D's raytracer is a little masterpiece. It's more or less the same we had back in v5 and it's still one of the best out there, not to mention its speed and ease of use.

[JIII]

What does C4D's renderer need?

I would think that caustic aberations, i.e jewels and stuff would be wanted, also true SSS would rock, but besides that what does the renderer need?

besides a renderman port that is.

[AdamT]

Per-pixel displacement, raytraced motion blur, real dof, to name a few.

[ThirdEye]

Originally posted by AdamT
Per-pixel displacement, raytraced motion blur, real dof, to name a few.

1) agreed
2) too slow, use scene blur
3) too slow, i'd prefer using a photoshop/afterfx plugin named Lenscare

[comanche]

Originally posted by prayas
... This preset rocks even with no nice drink on da rocks in it.
Are we allowed to use this preset free. Do you like to have credits under every image using it. :) ....

Feel free to use it in any way you want and please tweak it to your liking. :-)

Andreas aka comanche

[AdamT]

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01
1) agreed
2) too slow, use scene blur
3) too slow, i'd prefer using a photoshop/afterfx plugin named Lenscare
Well it goes without saying that the Cinema versions would be fast! :)

[LucentDreams]

I'd love raytraced motionblur and raytraced DOF as well, but Thirdeye is right the raytraced versions of those effecvts while superior for quality are terribly slow compared to tings like Scene motionblur and outr current DOF

[peXel]

ok boys and girls
what about making a glassimage so good as the braszilimages?
where are the renders? any chance? i will see perfect glass!
or cinema can't render such good glass?

[ThirdEye]

Originally posted by PeXel
ok boys and girls
what about making a glassimage so good as the braszilimages?
where are the renders? any chance? i will see perfect glass!
or cinema can't render such good glass?


I don't think we could make a PERFECT glass till they give us a refraction channel with variable iors.

[Claudio72]

Originally posted by PeXel
ok boys and girls
what about making a glassimage so good as the braszilimages?
where are the renders? any chance? i will see perfect glass!
or cinema can't render such good glass?

What do you mean? We have to imitate an existing brazil image?
do you mean here you don't find glasses as good as brazil's glasses?

[brasco]

I went and found this to help you on your quest for the "perfect" glass, thought you might find it useful

refractive index of glass.................1.5
refractive index of a vacuum..........1.0
refractive index of air.....................1.0003
refractive index of ice.....................1.31
refractive index of a water.............1.33

And if you were still trying to get decent fresnel using SLA Banji, try using only the edge opacity in the surface opacities for transparency.

And turn off all the illumination in the diffuse setting .
I tried this when i had a couple of spare minutes, here's what I came up with (sorry bout the scene just a tester)-

[JIII]

umm not to be critical but that doesnt look like glass.

[LucentDreams]

C4Dgenesis, just so you know, ever maxon manual from v5 on at least, have had a table of refraction indexes, the R8 manual lists 24 different materials actual refraction indexes, the R5 manual had even more I think. in the R8 manual you will find them on page 653

[brasco]

:eek: sorry bout the last post thought i'd scrapped it, and that jpeg was not the one i meant to put in there! bit busy be back on the weekend bye!

[eokorie]

dont know if this is a forgotten topic, but i have been experimenting with Cinema 4D to acheive believable glass.

This is the result of my work.....

Any comments would be appreciated

[Claudio72]

it looks photoreal but it's really hard to judge since the jpg quality is really too low.
Could you please post an high quality closeup of the element?

[eokorie]

At Claudio's request, here the better quality file.....

http://members.lycos.co.uk/grafikkaos/glass_test.jpg

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.