PDA

View Full Version : Brazil


TheWriter
09-18-2002, 07:21 PM
I heard a rumour that Brazil was coming to lightwave. I'd just like to confirm this, as I was planing on dumping lw because I am not too happy with its Slow & poor radiosity engine.
If Brazil is working on a plug in for lw, i'll most likely stick with it.

JacquesD
09-18-2002, 07:28 PM
That would be cool but I really doubt it.

anieves
09-18-2002, 07:35 PM
I read that somewhere as well. They just released it for max, maybe they will get that going. I also read that they are going to work on a Maya version. Until an official press release is done I take everything with a grin of salt.

TheWriter
09-18-2002, 07:36 PM
Damn, if i need to wait 2 years for something decent to come to LW, i'd sooner switch apps now to get the quality I need. I"ll keey an eye this week on the Brazil scene.

MrWyatt
09-18-2002, 07:47 PM
what about messiah render.
link (http://www.projectmessiah.com/x2/index_messiahsuite.htm)

CIM
09-18-2002, 07:55 PM
"...as I was planing on dumping lw because I am not too happy with its Slow & poor radiosity engine."

Funny how Lightwave is considered to have the best render engine around--and has for years. It sounds like you're a noob that knows nothing about how to use LW to me.

Nothing in the Sputterfish gallery can't be easily done with LW. Brazil just looks like a clone of Lightwave's engine, anyway. I'm sure the programmers at Sputterfish had a copy of Lightwave on hand.

Looks like you're dumb enough to fall for the hype, as many have.

MrWyatt
09-18-2002, 08:06 PM
CIM donīt be so pissed only because LWīs renderer isnīt fast enough for some people. Be openminded for third party products. I bet you wouldnīt go out and say that messiah is crap, because it isnīt. and Íīm pretty sure brazil is a kickass renderer, and unfortunately for us it seems to be faster than LWīs. So what the heck. Only a competition for Newtek to boost up the LW renderer. Competition is what brings us further isnīt it?
and here is something i found in the Brazil FAQ-section :

Will Brazil run in maya, lightwave, xsi, rhino, [put your app here], etc....?

We hope Brazil will eventually run on many different platforms and within many different applications. Whichever direction Brazil goes, there will have to be a demand for it. Brazil will have a full API for integrating it with other packages so it will be possible for other software vendors to make their applications Brazil friendly. If you have a particular application you would like to use Brazil with, make sure to tell us about it and make sure that the creators of that application also know your interest in using Brazil with their application.

Julez4001
09-18-2002, 08:27 PM
I think what CIM is saying that newbies usually want the fast and 'hype" rather fully getting intimate with the chosen app. I've been courting XSI and still find myself going back to lw.

Messiah:render hasn't been fully resolved so its not a viable choice for animation mabe stills.

Eugeny
09-18-2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by TheWriter
I heard a rumour that Brazil was coming to lightwave. I'd just like to confirm this, as I was planing on dumping lw because I am not too happy with its Slow & poor radiosity engine.
If Brazil is working on a plug in for lw, i'll most likely stick with it.
Sorry but did u tryed this Puerto - Riko plugin ones? U say LW radiosity slow - man u need wait endless with Guadeloupe renderer... CIM is right there is nothing in Brazil (oops) gallery can't be easily done with LW.
Now seriously i used Brazil , i used Radiosity in Cinema (it's almost the same as Final Render) and even Radiozity (yes Radiozity) renderer of Form Z - nothing can be compared to LW in speed and flexibility...

Lizard Head
09-18-2002, 08:35 PM
In fact you can always spot a rendering done with brazil.. they all have that same artificial and flat look... maybe its MAX.. I dunno,, Im just glad I left all that behind. LW rox

E_Moelzer
09-18-2002, 08:40 PM
Hello
I am not sure what all that Brazil- hype is about!
I mean, I am very sure that none of you has ever used Brazil under serious production- circumstances. Certainly it produces some cool pictures and is able to do some stuff LW cant (like the SSS) natively (but there are partially free plugins for that). But LW does beautifyull pictures as well and has been doing so for many years.
I use LW every day in production and I stressed LWs renderengine a lot. It is maybe not the fastest but very realyable and very predictable (which is important for me). I care more about things like motionblur that works always and on every element of a scene or beautifull shading, or good fog and volumetrics that reflect and refract etc, than about SSS.
Hehe, but whoever wants to use it, shall do it! One serious competitor less for me ;-)
CU
Elmar

visualboo
09-18-2002, 10:20 PM
Brazil (standalone version) is in production. Yes it will work with LW in the future.

I suggest that everybody just give it a little bit of time for the v1 renders to start floating around (maybe they won't look so "flat"). ;)

evenflcw
09-19-2002, 12:02 AM
I think the multiple program support was mentioned in a recent interview at CGChannel aswell. Personally I don't think Brazil renders look any better or worse than LW renders, and if it's faster then great. But I wonder how well it will integrate (if at all)with LW.

Khepri
09-19-2002, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by CIM
Brazil just looks like a clone of Lightwave's engine, anyway. I'm sure the programmers at Sputterfish had a copy of Lightwave on hand.

Looks like you're dumb enough to fall for the hype, as many have.

yeah sure if someone would like to copy LW's render-engine:applause:


also "the hype" has passed well over a year ago...:shame:

who is dumb?

someone who sticks with a renderer for sentimental reasons, or someone who wants to use the tools wich are the best for a job?

:hmm:

BrandonD
09-19-2002, 01:13 AM
Actually it's FAR from a clone of the Lightwave engine (or does that mean that any raytracer is a clone?). It's a rendering system framework made up of components, much the same way that MAX is a 3d framework where everything is a plugin component. It has some very advanced acceleration rountines developed in production over the course of several years. Though it has support for next generation light transport technology, it's not "only a GI renderer" - it's much more than that. It has a very easy to use shader language that allows users to tweak materials to their hearts content. Brazil also adds more powerful lights and cameras (in MAX at least) and adapts the UI accordingly. At this point it has more in common with Jig. Still, I'm not here to knock Lightwave (I worked at a LW house for 3 years), but I think a few of you can't see past it when looking at other tools.

takkun
09-19-2002, 01:33 AM
I'm sick of threads like this.

Use whatever the f*ck you want! I don't care, no one cares.

isnowboard
09-19-2002, 01:46 AM
Exactly. Brazil, Messiah, whatever. At the price of $1200 USD, I would rather have the next 3 full updates of LW.

If the only payment you make on software is the price of an internet connection, use whatever new renderer/piece of software that comes on the scene.

TheWriter
09-19-2002, 04:46 AM
"Looks like you're dumb enough to fall for the hype, as many have."

Thankyou CIM for showing off your great wisdom. That statement really added a lot of knowledge to this thread. Great job, you must be an executive for Lightwave by now I take it?

Now as for everyone else. Thankyou for your input. The #1 issue, and i've been looking at the stats, not this so called (hype), is speed. I even did some checking up at the newtek site with the guys there and it seems they pretty much admit lw falls flat on her face when compared to speed vs Brazil. I've been looking at the Brazil gallery and they had some very nice things. But this certainly does not mean that lightwave also does not have great things to show off either. They both do.
I guess I made a big mistake, asking in a lightwave forum something regarding a competitive product. I must have broken the ego rule, I'm sorry. Guess there is always someone who has to get upset instead of tallying benefits of 2 seperate systems.
In any case, i'll try and stick with lw for now and continue trying to tweak it's settings. So please, no one else get upset.

wgreenlee1
09-19-2002, 05:20 AM
WELL I FOR ONE I AM DARN WELL UPSET!!!!!!!!!!



::scream: I just spilt my last drop of milk and I have a mouth full of cookies]

Thanks alot everyone!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:


I think I'm going to bed now after I choke on my cookies......:rolleyes::scream:

Ed Lee
09-19-2002, 06:23 AM
I told myself I wouldn't get into "render" warz but since Brazil boyz are snooping around here too I guess it warrants my 2 pesos. I know those guys and BrandoD and feel like they're genuinely hard working lads but find them little on the defensive when peeps talk about Brazil especially. (I don't profess to know all but my "thing" is quality and efficiency). I try to weigh different softwares including plug-ins like the way I would shop for art materials. Different brands offer subtle differences but the nature of the material iz what I look for when tackling a project. Yes, I've tried Brazil tho nice quality but I couldn't see myself spending that kind of money on a "stand-alone" renderer for Max. I think I've tried almost every 3D software that's out there - some really obscure ones too - and have become broke because I spent alot of money buying softwares but I couldn't decide which is best software. For me, each have their good points and bad ( I know you have heard this statements before) but I narrowed it down to few, and here's what I prefer (if u care to know). Organic modeling and modeling in general: Lightwave. Character animation: Maya. As far as renderer goes I couldn't pick one. Each software have good and bad sides. Tho I think I would pick Lightwave because it's inherent rendering engine. With Max it needs a renderer. And Maya as well....but, the quality of it right off the bet is pretty good considering that there's not much there to play with but it's very rich if u know what to push. So, if I were stranded on an island but can only pick one software I would pick Lightwave because it's fun to use, and for the price and features it can't be beat. BTW, LW was the first ever 3D software I bought - so I guess I'm somewhat biased. Just my 2 pesos.

Ed--

www.edleeart.com

isnowboard
09-19-2002, 06:39 AM
and have become broke because I spent alot of money buying softwares but I couldn't decide which is best software

How broke?

Ed Lee
09-19-2002, 07:00 AM
:surprised

Ed--

anieves
09-19-2002, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Eugeny
Sorry but did u tryed this Puerto - Riko plugin ones? U say LW radiosity slow - man u need wait endless with Guadeloupe renderer... CIM is right there is nothing in Brazil (oops) gallery can't be easily done with LW.
Now seriously i used Brazil , i used Radiosity in Cinema (it's almost the same as Final Render) and even Radiozity (yes Radiozity) renderer of Form Z - nothing can be compared to LW in speed and flexibility...

Eugeny:

I am sorry to announce that the Puerto-Riko render plug in for LW will no longer be produced. I apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused.


original from Puerto Rico.

Eugeny
09-19-2002, 01:41 PM
He he :)

red_oddity
09-19-2002, 03:47 PM
Come on guys, be a little open minded here.
When i look at the Brazil renders i must admit they look pretty friggin' good, as for speed, yes the Brazil render engine is faster (with radiosity or GI) than the LW native renderer...I say faster here, because there still isn't a radiosity/GI renderer that can actually be called 'fast'.

The reason a lot of the renders look so good is that they have been made by pretty good artists, not because there is some magical 'make-it-look-amazing' button.

As for radiosity/GI in general, i think is it overrated...waaaaaaay overrated, yes you can get good looking pictures fast (render time not included that is), but, i think and pretty damn well know for sure, that you can create much better/distinct looking pictures with proper old fashioned lighting.
It's just that a lot of people have no idea about what proper lighting actually means or how it works in the first placed (just grab a few books on cinematography when you start lighting)

anyway, just my 2 eurocent (or 1.8675 US $cents by todays market rate)

minus
09-19-2002, 05:00 PM
Well... Brazil offers other packages a lot more value than it does for Lightwave.... as Lightwave certainly is able to do most of the things that Brazil can do... and I think it does it with great speed too.

There are some things that Brazil does a lot better though... and you shouldn't kid yourself about this.

1) There is no flicker when using Radiosity...

2) There is no flicker when using caustics... (Lightwave Caustics just suck compared to Brazil.... nearly unusable in animations).

3) Is multithreaded more to allow for multiple machines working on a single frame without any need for "hacks" or 3rd party applications like LW.

4) Sub Surface Scattering.

There are other things aswell.... like rendering out billions of polygons without using uber amounts of ram...

Anyway... like I said... LW would probably be the last package Brazil is ported too as it needs it the least.... but the Lightwave render engine is showing it's age when compared to some of the very latest render solutions out there. This can only be expected though as the LW rendering engine has been king of the hill for so long.

Chewey
09-19-2002, 05:13 PM
Reading through this thread would lead one to believe that Prman doesn't exist.

LyonHaert
09-19-2002, 05:18 PM
lmao:applause:

AAbel
09-19-2002, 05:45 PM
Don't you think it's pretty damn funny that "the best" :rolleyes: renderer in the biz doesn't even have a shading language, and from what I can gather you can't even use expressions for rendering. That is so severely limiting it's sick.

Another thing I have noticed with Lightwave renders, and this regards cell shading, the perspective is all perfect 1 point perspective. Where is the 2 and 3 point perspective? Does Lightwave allow users to define where the vanishing points are?

Per-Anders
09-19-2002, 06:04 PM
hmmm.... never known a 3d package that allows you to define vanishing points.... perhaps you need freehand?

lol

or maybe you're talking about lens distortion? i believe that worley labs make a quite nice lens distortion plugin... of course when you're talking about cartoon renders... i don't recall mr magoo having any perspective at all...

E_Moelzer
09-19-2002, 06:25 PM
Hello Aabel
You can write some excelent shaders using LWs SDK. However you will have to use C(++). This has disadvantages and advantages as well. Our programmer loves writing shaders for LW better than for renderman. We are constnaly pushing the limits of LWs renderer and never had any probs with it...
What would you like to have expressions for?
Also not sure what you mean with the vanishing- points, sorry...
CU
Elmar

JacquesD
09-19-2002, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by red_oddity
i think and pretty damn well know for sure, that you can create much better/distinct looking pictures with proper old fashioned lighting.
It's just that a lot of people have no idea about what proper lighting actually means or how it works in the first placed (just grab a few books on cinematography when you start lighting)


I'd be really interested to see one of your proper old fashioned lighting to see how much better It looks compared to one new fashioned lighting with radiosity.
Nothing personal but that's b***s**t, if you're good at lighting without radiosity, there's no doubt that you'll be much better with radiosity.
Besides, do you really think that programmers have spent years and years developing render engines, shaders,... for fun?, humm, I don't think so.

Sorry for my english. :)

Per-Anders
09-19-2002, 07:09 PM
well, radiosity is nice. but even the mighty prman doesn't have radiosity yet (will in the next release though) and that's the so called industry standard. if you want to see some wonderful renders using just standard lighting check out any pixar animation.

minus
09-19-2002, 07:27 PM
Well... prman only recently got raytracing too though right? -- Or is that in the next release? --

I'm not going to agree that radiosity automatically makes things better.... actually I think it can be sort of a crutch untill you get *really* good at lighting. -- I may change my mind... but probably not untill 5ghz computers are the norm.

I don't like the idea of prman being the industry standard... I guess it depends on what industry you are talking about... I think it's strengths lie in it's shader language... and it's ability to render n-gons smoothly... (damn patents)... but as far as incorporating technologies... it's been behind the curve for a while... but I think that is a matter of stability over ability. -- PrMan can make awesome renders.... and it's very extensible across multiple machines for rendering.... but I don't think that it's what most people are looking for for product advertising... , visualization, or hobby work from home.

Chewey
09-19-2002, 09:32 PM
If you need to ask what the benefits prman affords beyond making nice looking renders then you probably don't need to know anyway. Not aimed at the hobbyist market.

TheWriter
09-19-2002, 09:35 PM
I have worked my way up through many different lighting systems. And I have to say radiosity is the best type i've seen so far, unless speed is an issue of course.
In any case, I would like to see how this so called old-dated lighting matches modern radiosity? I just find this too hard to believe. I too would like to see images of this for comparison.
Something out there is driving a push towards better lighting systems.

Per-Anders
09-19-2002, 09:59 PM
hmmm... sorry i had thought speed was the issue here? if it's just quality, then seriously the lightwave render engine can compete with brazil pretty darn well.... just look at the lightwave gallery to see that. There's no Instant Art button for any peice of software, and the other thing is the render engine is only one part of the package. It's what you put into it in the first place. I've seen renders out of C4D that match stuff done in Mental Ray, I've seen people do stuff with Maya's render engine (which is widely regarded as being rather poo) that knocks spots off of a lot of the stuff in the brazil gallery (currently). It's what you put in in the first place. LW offers GI, if you really want radiosity then use Max 5's inbuilt render engine... but how much do you know about Max as a modeller?

What are you trying to produce? Animation? Then Brazil is not really something to consider unless you have a whole heap of money for the extra stations you're going to need to make it worthwhile.

Stills? Brazil is a fine render engine for stills, in which case... what's the worry about speed?... render tests on any setup are gonig to be slow, and done at low res with aa off etc...

What you put in is what comes out. As far as I'm aware both Brazil and Lightwave use GI rather than Radiosity (but i might be wrong here)... they're both RayTracing engines which makes them both slow. They can both produce stunning artwork in the right hands. Brazil is only the render engine, you need 3D Max to work with it currently, which package can you produce better models/scenes in? (this is a personal question). What is the quality versus price gain?

Really seriously consider what you are doing here. It's a lot of money, and after you've sat there and made a nice glass ball or wine glass with nice GI and some blobby shape to try out the sub-surface scattering what features are you going to use? What are you going to use it for? What work requires this? If you were a business you would have to justify all these things and the cost of this... after all what project specifically needed Brazil features? If you jsut want to play... then there's still a free version of Brazil floating around on Splutterfish' website somewhere.

Really if you want something that's faster there are free versions of renderman out there (3delight) etc.... but it's difficult to tell what you want.

takkun
09-19-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by minus

There are other things aswell.... like rendering out billions of polygons without using uber amounts of ram...


That's only if all the objects are the same, those renders with 100,000 teapots or whatever use instancing which when you think about it is pretty useless and misleading.

RealThing
09-20-2002, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Felytendect
That's only if all the objects are the same, those renders with 100,000 teapots or whatever use instancing which when you think about it is pretty useless and misleading.

Well that's not intirely true and it's not misleading as long as you carefully read the discription of the image. If you want misleading look at Final Render's site which does the same thing but doesn't even tell you that it's using instancing to pull it off. Practical applications of instancing would be particle systems, leaves, grass, etc. So it's not useless.

DotPainter
09-20-2002, 02:11 AM
I think that buying a software package is like buying a car. Everyone has their own features that they want and many times already have certain ideas as to what cars they would like more than others. Then comes the actual feel of the car and how it handles. Lastly and many times most importantly comes the price.

Buying a 3d app is no different. The only thing I find odd and somewhat misleading, though is how the radiosity features are never really advertised to show "real world" scenes versus eye candy type of renders that are specially designed to show of basic features and not true power and sophistication. Like someone else said, how often do you see the cornell box, glass ball, or wine glass images used to show of the power of a renderer. ????? duh, I mean that is good, but that does not really show me much as far as rendering power is concerned. (Thats like saying our gi really does .... gi!! wow! (or soft shadows anyway)) On top of that, those types of scenes, espcially the cornel box, are really only meant for showing features like color bleeding. There is much more to a renderer and GI than that I would hope.

Getting back to the car analogy, I think a smart buyer would look past the hype and really dig deep to see what they are buying.
For me, I want to know if I can put a single sun light in a scene, model an entire floor or whole building, add furniture and other objects and then use GI to render the lighting just as it would in real life for the following scenerios: bright midday sun and overcast midday. IMO, these are the areas where radiosity and even caustics seem to come up short. I dont know if you have ever noticed, but most times when you see an interior shot of a room or apartment with some type of GI sunlight coming through a window, you notice the window is SUPER bright. Meaning that the only way to get the render to look good was to put a luminous plane right in the window and set the luminosity to 6000%..... yeah real sophisticated..... But hey! isn't that a variation on that cornell box.... Seems to me they need to build the engine to do more than 1) light objects by themselves on an infinite plane 2) light objects in a closed box with a single bright light inside3) any variation thereof

The only way in my mind to solve such issues and to make GI more usable and more dynamic is to add some sort of adaptive meshing and various threshold controls to the renderer especially for the color bleeding, light bounces and shadows. That way you could have that living room with blinds, sofa curtains, glass sculptures, rug, cat, bookcase, photos, plants, coffe table, carpet, light fixture, wood floor, mirrors .... all look perfectly real with a sun light in the sky, not on the window sill. So for me, now that the novelty of GI has worn off, I look for more than just a render button, but more advanced options that I could use to increase the dynamic range of the lighting environment to more closely match that of the real world. I am not gonna pay thousands of dollars just to render a cornell box.

Per-Anders
09-20-2002, 02:28 AM
well... the thing is the render engine works like a camera... i don't know if you've noticed but if you take a photo of an interior and it's all nice and well lit... anything out the window is all bleached out... this is comparative brightness... you can always increase the shutter speed... but then you're going to get an interior that's far too dark.

there are two ways of dealing with reflected light (currently) GI and Radiosity. They're basically the opposite way around from each other... Radiosity tracks light from the source (i.e. the light) and where it hits.... GI samples points in the cameras view and bounces backwards (diffusion depth).

They both work, but Radiosity is better suited to outdoor scenes. Lightwave & brazil both use GI (as far as i'm aware at least) rather than radiosity.

Look around at the galleries and you will see inbetween the wine glasses many wonderful works, some completely photoreal, some not so using GI. Check out Highend3d.com and the lightwave3d.com as well as splutterfish for their galleries... it's all up to how you set up the scene. and how you composite it afterwards... if you use HDRI then you can have your background scene and interior all working perfectly together to create photorealism.

anim8r2
09-20-2002, 02:48 AM
Hey, I don't mind spending money, but 1200 clams for a renderer that adds a little speed (and not enough contrast) to my renders? yeah, whatever. I may be biased, but wow! the renders in LW's gallery look noticeably better than the images I've seen in Brazil's gallery. Plus, you get 999 rendering nodes with each copy of LW. hmmmmmm...

I too, will buy the next three upgrades to my awesome renderer (LW).

But, I don't begrudge Max and Maya users for wanting a different rendering solution. Or the 'waver that produces a lot of Caustic/Radiosity intensive animations.

red_oddity
09-20-2002, 12:54 PM
Ripper, to see good pre-radiosity/GI images just look at the average movie that uses 3d work (heck even pixar doesn't use GI/Radiosity, they use people who know what lighting is about)

But, yes, you're right when you say that with radiosity someone who knows his deal about lighting could create serious good looking pics (but at what cost i wonder, for some reason GI/radiosity images involve a buttload of work to get them looking like you want them to look (let alone to get rid of the artifacts often found with radiosity renders))

Just my 2 cents.

E_Moelzer
09-20-2002, 03:01 PM
Hello Dotpainter
Like Sadie already said, the lightis so much brighter outside.
A few values: the sun is more than 20 times as bright on a sunny noon, than on a cloudy one(this was measured data). Outside you have at least nearly exactly the 60 times as much brightness as inside (most of the time even more, depends on the windows etc). The tricky part of it, is that we do never realize that, because of our eyes and brain filtering the information for us.
It also depends on what you are focusing on!
This is also why GI- renering sometimes show these extremely bright spots and therefore look unnatural, it is the lack of Depth of field in them! Usually you would have an ideal contrast- space for everythign that is within focus, despite in situations of rather extreme brightness or darkness involved, so neither rhe eye, nor the brain can filter anymore like when you look directly into the sun, but want to focus on somethig else...
Hope that helps you a bit with understanding of that white window- issue.
CU
Elmar

BrandonD
09-20-2002, 10:40 PM
I know those guys and BrandoD and feel like they're genuinely hard working lads but find them little on the defensive when peeps talk about Brazil especially. (I don't profess to know all but my "thing" is quality and efficiency). I try to weigh different softwares including plug-ins like the way I

Oh mon! Ed's still alive....somewhere.

3DDave
09-20-2002, 11:10 PM
If you look at the work ILM did for Episode 2 you must admit it looks great. Granted they used Renderman, but at the same time they "baked" radiosity renders into the textures and rendered normally (with lights) though Prman and then made adjustments in compositing. Texture baking has been with Lightwave for a while now, I am not sure if Brazil has that or not. If you want radiosity rendering without the time price, baking is a must.

Also the CG R2D2 in the Naboo and foundry scenes was in fact animated and rendered with Lightwave's radiosity engine. (CineFeX, Issue 90)

David

Ed Lee
09-21-2002, 04:23 AM
Hey Sarge,

Yeah, I'm alive and kicking, and sniping fOO's. Had din din with Soulburn before he left to go work for Pixar.

Saw your interview for the chopper movie, can't recall the name of the movie. Anyway, a big congratulations to you - I'm sure it's only the BEGINNING for you on your long career.

I'm happy I'm out of Blur tho, great things come to those who wait, hehe. :thumbsup:

Ed--

www.edleeart.com

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 04:00 PM
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.