PDA

View Full Version : So impressed with AR 2.5


Pages : [1] 2

ThePriest
09-04-2005, 07:43 AM
Congrats Maxon, I came from 3D Studio Max with some hope of using Cinema for ArchViz
to find what I consider the best modeling tools, best workflow i'd ever seen.
My only beef was a slight let down with the GI solutions and I've read enough about splotches to last a life time.

Hats off to the whole team with the update.

This is an awfully simple scene, but at 1min 12seconds with 2 Area lights.
(1200 x 900 Original size) It simply blows my mind.

Radiosity settings default, Area settings default.

danb
09-04-2005, 12:53 PM
The speed improvement is insane. I rendered a scene with a high poly car and HDRI GI. The old 8.5 render time was roughly 2hrs per frame. The new render time is 20 minutes.


I couldn't beleive it. Awesome job guys, again.

xeno3d
09-04-2005, 02:10 PM
That looks very nice.

Was that a test scene? Any chance you could post the file?

STRAT
09-04-2005, 08:11 PM
most cool. out of interest, can you render this exact same scene in gi stoch mode in both 9.1 and 9.5 to see any speed differences?

JIII
09-04-2005, 08:20 PM
haha, and the other thread is like... oh no the renderer sucks... ugh I want a consensus!

-JIII

Continuumx
09-04-2005, 08:47 PM
Congrats Maxon, I came from 3D Studio Max with some hope of using Cinema for ArchViz
to find what I consider the best modeling tools, best workflow i'd ever seen.
My only beef was a slight let down with the GI solutions and I've read enough about splotches to last a life time.

Hats off to the whole team with the update.

This is an awfully simple scene, but at 1min 12seconds with 2 Area lights.
(1200 x 900 Original size) It simply blows my mind.

Radiosity settings default, Area settings default.

Looks very good, ThePriest! Thanks for posting. I am shaking at the thought of an AR3.0, at this rate, Maxon is not playing around anymore.

destro80
09-04-2005, 10:35 PM
haha, and the other thread is like... oh no the renderer sucks... ugh I want a consensus!

-JIII
My vote is a big thumbs up.
I haven't done GI renders in the past because of the long render times. But with the 9.5 demo, GI is fast enough to be an viable option for me.

LucentDreams
09-05-2005, 12:32 AM
My vote is a big thumbs up.
I haven't done GI renders in the past because of the long render times. But with the 9.5 demo, GI is fast enough to be an viable option for me.


man you guys are making me go insane, what GI speedups are you talking about? There were no changes, the only thing GI specific that might improve rendertimes is not including illumination in the prepass, but these dramatic speedups everyone keep smentioning are not the GI itself.

andronikos916
09-05-2005, 12:41 AM
most cool. out of interest, can you render this exact same scene in gi stoch mode in both 9.1 and 9.5 to see any speed differences?

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8978/95vs910kh.jpg

small test:

1 omni (area shadows)
GI Stochastic Mode

Bob3D
09-05-2005, 01:12 AM
What are the practical and visible differences between standard and stochastic radiosity? The manual doesn't really explain it beyond mentioning that stochastic mode simulates the ARNOLD renderer (and what's that?).

destro80
09-05-2005, 01:26 AM
man you guys are making me go insane, what GI speedups are you talking about? There were no changes, the only thing GI specific that might improve rendertimes is not including illumination in the prepass, but these dramatic speedups everyone keep smentioning are not the GI itself.

Ha Ha...welcome to the insane club. :p
I think it maybe the overall increase in rendering speed that's doing it. I haven't really done GI before, so it's hard to work out exactly whats up with the speed. All I remember with GI was that it took so long to render I would give up in frustration. Could be that the AA speed up is making the total render time acceptable.

lightblitter22
09-05-2005, 01:52 AM
I'm not that impressed with AR 2.5 but stoch mode GI is faster, even in this simple test. The speed difference probably multiplies when heavier geometry comes into play.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8049/stochfaster3zs.jpg

ThePriest
09-05-2005, 04:58 AM
I'm not necessarily implying that GI is faster, only that the ideal setup for a well lit scene is
now possible in much less time than previous versions of AR.

That ideal setup for me being light portals w/ area shadows in the windows,
a skylight, a directional light with an area shadow, that doesn't take two days to render.

Now you can commit one area light for all the connected pieces of glass geometry in a scene
Of course 4 glass panels is equal to 4 area lights
but it's far less time consuming than placing them by all by hand.
I found this feature alone phenomenal.

Given the small improvements to GI and the speed increases area lights,
it's going to make our lives very much easier.

shakes
09-05-2005, 06:38 AM
man you guys are making me go insane, what GI speedups are you talking about? There were no changes, the only thing GI specific that might improve rendertimes is not including illumination in the prepass, but these dramatic speedups everyone keep smentioning are not the GI itself.

whatever it is, I don't care! I'm just really happy with an almost 30% increase in speed using hdri. It's the sole reason I'll be upgrading from 8.5. (and n-gons of course)

ngrava
09-05-2005, 07:57 AM
I think what you guys are seeing is the speed up with Area lights. If you have a scene without them, you probably wont see an difference.

-=GB=-

shakes
09-05-2005, 08:18 AM
I think what you guys are seeing is the speed up with Area lights. If you have a scene without them, you probably wont see an difference.

-=GB=-

hmm-maybe it's just some miracle from God or something! I just use hdri with no extra lights, and
it's definitely alot faster. I've tried it on a few different old files and they're all 25-30% quicker using GI /HDRI.

lllab
09-05-2005, 09:28 AM
I am very, very impresssed tooo.

i feel very vray like suddenly in ar, or maybe even better,
-everything just does as i would expect, the lights the areashadows, reflection, GI (almost, but much better) i con combine area lights blurred reflections GI- still very smooth and speedy!

i dont know what they did, but they made it a hell lot better than before. also love sky, the new arealights seem to be reat although i havent understand until now how the more complex really work.

hope baker is that good as expected, it doesnt save the text in demo, but looked quite good.
whats the difference between texture baking and object baking?

well ave to explore more, but a real BIG thanks to the maxon team!

cheers
stefan

andonikos- this is an amazing speed increase- have to test stoch too here:-)

JamesMK
09-05-2005, 09:46 AM
whats the difference between texture baking and object baking?

The Object baker is a lot more automatic (it makes a duplicate of your object, applies a new material with the baked texture in on the duplicate and so on), but it is slightly less flexible than the texture baker. So, it comes down to the choice in each situation, if you need maximum flexibility (texture bake) or maximum ease of use (object bake).

ThirdEye
09-05-2005, 10:09 AM
I think what you guys are seeing is the speed up with Area lights. If you have a scene without them, you probably wont see an difference.

-=GB=-

No, that's simply wrong. Make a new scene, throw Otto in and put the HN subdivisions to 3 or 4, just to get some decent poly count. Render it, even with autolight, and you'll see a helluva difference in the render times. The speed difference can go up to 1000-2000%, depending on the scene, normally it's around 200%, it goes up once you throw in blurry reflections, GI, and area shadows, especially together, but due to the AA changes you basically always get a speedup.

bobtronic
09-05-2005, 10:11 AM
as james said the object baker is like a baker wizard, it even creates uv maps if you like.

cheers,
Bob

robodesign
09-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally Posted by Kai Pedersen
man you guys are making me go insane, what GI speedups are you talking about? There were no changes, the only thing GI specific that might improve rendertimes is not including illumination in the prepass, but these dramatic speedups everyone keep smentioning are not the GI itself.

That's correct.
I've conducted many tests, each different:
1. A scene only lit by radiosity without blurry effects, no lights and no AA. Both took to render exactly 2minutes [c4d r9.1 versus r9.5].
2. I made a test scene with some primitives on which I applied a material with blurry reflections. I put two omni-lights with area shadows turned on. Further more, I turned on radiosity: stoch samp: 100; min/max:20/40; diffuse depth:5. In R9.1 took over 31 minutes and in R9.5 took only exactly 3 minutes to render it entirely.

When I turned off the blurry reflections... the difference wasn't sooo dramatic: from about 4mins. to 2mins.

In a scene i'm working on... which uses omni lights with soft shadows + radiosity, no blurry reflections... the render times are, dunno why, lower in R9.5: 7mins vs. 4mins.

The first render test... clearly shows that the GI hasn't been improved. Only the AA, area shadows and very much... the blurry reflections.

Congrats to Maxon for the C4D R9.5 upgrade. Well done. No crashes on my side ;)... rock stable.

lllab
09-05-2005, 10:25 AM
well GI stoch mode must have been improved much in some way:

just did a test with a scene i posted some days ago:

in stochGI:
9.1: 13:54mn
9.5: 4:13mn!

cool,
cheers
stefan

ThirdEye
09-05-2005, 10:27 AM
well GI stoch mode must have been improved much in some way:

just did a test with a scene i posted some days ago:

in stochGI:
9.1: 13:54mn
9.5: 4:13mn!

probably the speedup you're seeing here depends on two things:

1) the AA changes we talked about
2) the fact stochastic mode and blurry reflections / area shadows are computed with the same method

Darth Mole
09-05-2005, 11:09 AM
I've done a load of tests and I've rarely found ANY scene that just doesn't render more quickly with R9.5. If you add soft reflections and area lights the effect is much more pronounced - one scene I had that took nearly two hours in R9 took just 8 minutes in 9.5!

Of course, there are now many differences in how the renderer works: I found it hard to even replicate the reflections between the (identical) scenes. I also started winding down the render settings to get a decent render time in R9. And when I go it down to 30 mins, the 9.5 scene was rendering in about three!

lllab
09-05-2005, 11:34 AM
"the fact stochastic mode and blurry reflections / area shadows are computed with the same method"

... this is logical- i thought that already:-9)

cheers
stefan

STRAT
09-05-2005, 11:53 AM
hehe, you almost get the impression that by adding blurry refs and area shadows it will make the render even faster than without them!

Ernest Burden
09-05-2005, 02:18 PM
the fact stochastic mode

Where is this 'fast stochastic mode'? I think you need to do a test (like I did) where you are ONLY rendering with stochastic, and not also with area shadows, AA or blurry stuff. My results tell me that stochastic is not any faster in 9.5 vs. 9.1 Those other things seem to be (I wouldn't know since I eliminated all of them from my work so I could actually get stuff done) faster, which is good. But the base GI calcs are looking to be no faster than before.

lllab
09-05-2005, 02:28 PM
i did a test with a scene not using any blurry effect.

it renders 300% faster than before in stoch mode at that scene, not using ANY blurred effect.

i didnt write fast but "fact"- (it was part of a sentence i quoted-see above)
the fact seem to be that the stoch mode uses the same allgorythms as the blurry effects so it also gains speed - same as blurry stuff.

cheers
stefan

Ernest Burden
09-05-2005, 02:58 PM
i did a test with a scene not using any blurry effect.

it renders 300% faster than before in stoch mode at that scene, not using ANY blurred effect.

i didnt write fast but "fact"


Stefan

Indeed, it was 'fact', and I knew you were quoting but that wasn't clear in how I used it, either. After a life of well above 'normal' vision, I am now 42 and cannot see anything, closer that my outstretched hand, very clearly. I have an unfilled prescription for glasses, last night my wife said 'get over it, get the glasses'. 'Fact' looks enough like 'fast'. And I want to find that fast stochastic because when I loaded my 9.1 stochastic rendering model into 9.5 and hit 'render' I got a similar result (a bit slower actually). I used no AA, blurries or area shadows. It was plain stochastic and it wasn't any faster.

And when I said 'you' should do a plain vanilla test I also meant the broader you, not directed at just you. Its a Monday holiday and I have to work. Please forgive me my pooply composed post.

STRAT
09-05-2005, 03:02 PM
I used no AA, blurries or area shadows. It was plain stochastic and it wasn't any faster.


then add some, see what it does to the render times!



:p

AdamT
09-05-2005, 03:31 PM
My guess is that improved stochastic times without blurry effects/area shadows is a result of the improved AA--almost entirely. Since Ernest doesn't use AA (or blurry effects/area shadows) he's not seeing any speedup.

lllab
09-05-2005, 03:40 PM
Hi Earnest no prob.
i willl test it withoitAA later, lets see?

cheers
stefan

flingster
09-05-2005, 03:56 PM
i keep hearing blurry reflection and transparency has speeded up can anybody show some example or give some more info on this please?

andronikos916
09-05-2005, 03:58 PM
my test was with 1 Omni + Area shadows Stochastic and AA.

Both rendering (9.1 & 9.5) were identical in terms of quality.

9.1: 1hr17min
9.5: 6min16sec (or something like that)!

No reflections.
1 material only - difuse white/orange.

here is the rendering...
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8978/95vs910kh.jpg

Then I tryied to render with same settings the following scene but no luck... after 8hrs only 20% finished and not even close to the Maxwell Illumination!

I did not fine tune it! ...I did what I am always doing in Maxwell. 1 light and sky and let it burn! ...but with C4D AR 2.5 still not same easiness. :shrug:

http://bisand.com/maxwell/2/slides/1.jpg

I can upload the scene if you want for testing perposes.

thanx,
Andronikos

AdamT
09-05-2005, 04:05 PM
Then I tryied to render with same settings the following scene but no luck... after 8hrs only 20% finished and not even close to the Maxwell Illumination!

I did not fine tune it! ...I did what I am always doing in Maxwell. 1 light and sky and let it burn! ...but with C4D AR 2.5 still not same easiness. :shrug:
Even with stochastic mode @ 50 hours that's probably faster than Maxwell at the same noise level.

I agree though, that Maxwell is probably the best render engine for producing good images with the least amount of skill required. That's not to say that skill *isn't* required; I've seen plenty of sh*tty M~R renders.

andronikos916
09-05-2005, 04:12 PM
Even with stochastic mode @ 50 hours that's probably faster than Maxwell at the same noise level.

I agree though, that Maxwell is probably the best render engine for producing good images with the least amount of skill required. That's not to say that skill *isn't* required; I've seen plenty of sh*tty M~R renders.

agree AdamT....

but this rendering took around 10hrs. Anyway I do not want to hijack the thread so lets contunue with AR 2.5 speed and quality...

Just want to say that I was so impressed at the beggining with that simple scene but when I tryied to apply it in a real day to day work model and did not work that well & fast for me...

cy,
Andronikos

lllab
09-05-2005, 04:39 PM
ok Earnest i did the test without AA-slightly lower resolution:

stoch GI:

9.1 ...3.04
9.5 ...2,10, -so still faster here...

and i did a test with normal GI:

9.1...2.06
9.5...0.54 lot faster !?

i dont know why the normalGI was so much faster on 9.5, but i really have no blurries in thescene. it must be some other kind of optimization.

of course my tests are very rough becAUSE @ small resolution
at least formy scenes here i have nice speedgains...

cheers
stefan

chris_b
09-05-2005, 04:54 PM
After having had a chance to take the demo for a spin, I just have to say that I never expected such a surprising increase in the speed and quality of the new area lights and glossy reflections. Awesome. The falloff looks magnificent. Definitely less need now to
jump directly to GI for nice, rich lighting solutions. Check out the quick test below... it is subpoly displacement on the spere with glossy reflections both on it and on the floor. The scene is lit by three area lights... one cool hemispherical area light, and two warm rectangular ones. The nice grain was not added in post, but rather resulted from the sampling of the very large soft area lights. No GI used. I am really looking forward to getting my disks and taking this for a proper spin...

Thanks to all the programmers and beta testers!

http://www.tendril.ca/ar25demo_test.jpg

lllab
09-05-2005, 04:57 PM
very cool image!

wow, how did you use the hemisperical-just placed in the center-?

yea a big thanks to maxon and also its testers-great job!
cheers
stefan

chris_b
09-05-2005, 05:24 PM
Yes exactly.... I'd send you the scene, but it was the demo, so I couldn't save it out. The set-up was as follows:

Hemispherical Area Light / Cool Blue – centred and above, covering the entire scene, shadow casting with no falloff and contrast set to -30

Rectangular Area Light (Key) / Orange – stage right, shadow casting with inverse square falloff and contrast set to -30

Rectangular Area Light (Fill) / Violet – above and right of camera with inverse square falloff and contrast set to -30

2 White, rectangular reflection planes positioned at key and fill with white luminance channels overcranked to between 150-300 for overbright reflections

1 80% Grey, large rectangular reflection plane positioned above scene

.... The materials are dead simple, both use glossy reflections... the displacement is Naki and Luka in a layer shader.

Also, be sure to render to a 32bit format so you can take advantage of the totally rocking new float precision post render exposure and gamma!

lllab
09-05-2005, 05:38 PM
absolutely cool- thanks for the tipps works well:-)

cheers
stefan

ThirdEye
09-05-2005, 05:49 PM
very cool image! Rendertime?

chris_b
09-05-2005, 05:55 PM
Sorry ThirdEye, in my excitement, I didn't check :argh:, but it was at least an hour or two... with the subpolydisplacement cranked up to level 6 and rendered at 720p. With v9, I wouldn't have even DARED to use area shadows with subpoly displacement AND glossy reflections.... hahaha this is awesome.... off to play some more

moka.studio
09-05-2005, 06:12 PM
my test was with 1 Omni + Area shadows Stochastic and AA.

Both rendering (9.1 & 9.5) were identical in terms of quality.

9.1: 1hr17min
9.5: 6min16sec (or something like that)!

No reflections.
1 material only - difuse white/orange.

here is the rendering...
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8978/95vs910kh.jpg

Then I tryied to render with same settings the following scene but no luck... after 8hrs only 20% finished and not even close to the Maxwell Illumination!

I did not fine tune it! ...I did what I am always doing in Maxwell. 1 light and sky and let it burn! ...but with C4D AR 2.5 still not same easiness. :shrug:

http://bisand.com/maxwell/2/slides/1.jpg

I can upload the scene if you want for testing perposes.

thanx,
Andronikos


Yes, please upload the scene, I would like to make some tests with it,
thanks,
jp

Ernest Burden
09-05-2005, 06:50 PM
then add some, see what it does to the render times!

OK, I did. Adding AA=geometry, sinc and turned Infinite light from hard shadows to area. Original way 9.5=11:57 mins, new way 9.5=22.09

I wonder why some of us are seeing better GI times under stochastic yet I'm not. My file's pretty big, but not stupid big, some large textures, too.

AdamT
09-05-2005, 07:00 PM
Try it in 9.1 with the new settings. :)

Canadianboy
09-05-2005, 07:04 PM
andronikos- that would be great if you could do that. and remeber to put the textures in there too lol

Ph0n33z
09-05-2005, 08:04 PM
I second that! Would love to see some lighting tests done with that scene.

Its something I could really learn from!

Silverdog
09-05-2005, 08:20 PM
I don't have R9.5/AR2.5 yet and was wondering if anyone has tried comparison renders using Sketch & Toon?

Kent

andronikos916
09-05-2005, 08:33 PM
Sure guys!

...I have included: .3ds, textures and the .c4d file.

It is almost ready for rendering but you need to play with Light intensity and GI Setings. Please do not change camera position. I have added a protection tag anyways.

The file is here: http://www.bisand.com/cathedral.rar (2.46 Mb)

thanx,
Andronikos

JoelOtron
09-05-2005, 08:37 PM
That image is stunning chris. :eek:

Continuumx
09-05-2005, 08:49 PM
my test was with 1 Omni + Area shadows Stochastic and AA.

Both rendering (9.1 & 9.5) were identical in terms of quality.

9.1: 1hr17min
9.5: 6min16sec (or something like that)!

No reflections.
1 material only - difuse white/orange.

here is the rendering...
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/8978/95vs910kh.jpg

Then I tryied to render with same settings the following scene but no luck... after 8hrs only 20% finished and not even close to the Maxwell Illumination!

I did not fine tune it! ...I did what I am always doing in Maxwell. 1 light and sky and let it burn! ...but with C4D AR 2.5 still not same easiness. :shrug:

I can upload the scene if you want for testing perposes.

thanx,
Andronikos

OFF TOPIC:

Hello Adronikos,

In my opinion, Maxwell and AR are two different species, and just how to use them together efficiently is going to take some time to figure out. I think it really is going to depend on what type of "look" you are after.

I am still working on this marriage....For instance, in one example I would use AR2.5 for landscaping/trees/environment and use the HDRI render ability of AR2.5 to make a MXI texture in Maxwell to light structural elements. I would also overlay some sketch and toon NPR in this scene as well. I now need Sketch and Toon to be faster.

Continuumx
09-05-2005, 08:57 PM
After having had a chance to take the demo for a spin, I just have to say that I never expected such a surprising increase in the speed and quality of the new area lights and glossy reflections. Awesome. The falloff looks magnificent. Definitely less need now to
jump directly to GI for nice, rich lighting solutions. Check out the quick test below... it is subpoly displacement on the spere with glossy reflections both on it and on the floor. The scene is lit by three area lights... one cool hemispherical area light, and two warm rectangular ones. The nice grain was not added in post, but rather resulted from the sampling of the very large soft area lights. No GI used. I am really looking forward to getting my disks and taking this for a proper spin...

Thanks to all the programmers and beta testers!

That is wonderful Chris! I would say this looks like GI! Very impressive and its only the ray tracer!

I can now see some good use of SPD for tree masses now if the speed holds up, it will be great for production.

Continuumx
09-05-2005, 09:01 PM
Yes exactly.... I'd send you the scene, but it was the demo, so I couldn't save it out. The set-up was as follows:

Hemispherical Area Light / Cool Blue – centred and above, covering the entire scene, shadow casting with no falloff and contrast set to -30

Rectangular Area Light (Key) / Orange – stage right, shadow casting with inverse square falloff and contrast set to -30

Rectangular Area Light (Fill) / Violet – above and right of camera with inverse square falloff and contrast set to -30

2 White, rectangular reflection planes positioned at key and fill with white luminance channels overcranked to between 150-300 for overbright reflections

1 80% Grey, large rectangular reflection plane positioned above scene

.... The materials are dead simple, both use glossy reflections... the displacement is Naki and Luka in a layer shader.

Also, be sure to render to a 32bit format so you can take advantage of the totally rocking new float precision post render exposure and gamma!

Excellent scene setup! Thanks for sharing your technique.

Ph0n33z
09-06-2005, 12:42 AM
ALright,

I wanted to give that Cathedral test scene a try. Now, take into consideration that I am a COMPLETE noob in terms of lighting/rendering. I have only been doing it for a month or so, off and on. However, I am going to use C4D 9.5 for arch viz, and found this scene particularly interesting.

While it isnt as good as the maxwell, most likely due to my abilites, it does have a nice look to it IMO. Plus, it only took 20 minutes! I know its not great, but just wanted to post it anyways.

Thanks again andronikos for another amazing render!

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6264/cathedraledit8ga.jpg

ThirdEye
09-06-2005, 12:51 AM
I hope not to be flamed but to me your pic looks better than Maxwell's.

andronikos916
09-06-2005, 01:14 AM
I did some test with that scene too... I managed to have a pretty good result with Volumetric lighting in about 6min on an AMD643500+. (Standar GI mode - not Stochastic!)

I do not beleive that c4d is better in terms of quality and I will avoid any kind of comparison. I just want to point out that it is now fast enought to do some serious Arch. Viz in a reasonable amount of time in my opinion.

by the way Ph0n33z can you crop you image in Photoshop? no need to see the entire window... just easier for our screens and eyes.

cy,
Andronikos

Continuumx
09-06-2005, 01:57 AM
I think all that is need to pull this off is some use of that new fog, DOF, and environment in 9.5- this render is very good by the way.

Ph0n33z
09-06-2005, 02:36 AM
:eek:

Wow..................I didnt expect the kind compliments from my first arch viz render hehehe.

I didnt spend too much time on it, but found that I didnt really need to as the result
seemed to look ok.

Just so u know, I only used 2 lights (infinite area + area shadow, area light + soft shadows)
and normal GI at fairly low settings.

I see this as a viable way to do arch viz, as u could get the same results in under 15 min if u
tweaked them. I am very impressed with 9.5 and cant wait to get it!

P.S. I didnt use any new features such as fog, sky, or DOF....so it oculd be made WAAY
better than my amateur result!

Ph0n33z
09-06-2005, 05:26 PM
Alright, just for a comparison of render times, I did a stochastic rendering using the same settings. It took 4 hours, 3 mins, 25 seconds. Compared to the Normal GI at 20 minutes...
Hope it helps!

http://img289.imageshack.us/img289/8763/cathedralstochedit4it.jpg


I am so sorry if I inadvertenly hijacked this thread!:sad:

Please continue on with the discussions everyone was having.

So sorry!

ThePriest
09-06-2005, 06:30 PM
13 minute test.
1 area lights w/ area shadows
12 area lights w/ soft shadows
Sun with Hard Shadows
Light Probe for the sky.

200 stoch 20/40 AA 1/4 Jpg quality Low

Ph0n33z
09-06-2005, 06:38 PM
I love the feel of that render priest! In mine, I wasnt going for a certain style...but trying
to replicate the maxwell render that andronikos had done....

Could you explain a little about where you placed the lights?

ThePriest
09-06-2005, 06:48 PM
I love the feel of that render priest! In mine, I wasnt going for a certain style...but trying
to replicate the maxwell render that andronikos had done....

Could you explain a little about where you placed the lights?

The lights are in almost every window, also planes preventing light from entering the lower regions of the model and then exposure changes in the final render.

I dislike the Maxwell render as it feels too evenly lit for my personal taste.
I like a lot of color variation and different light contrasts to set a warmer tone.

Ph0n33z
09-06-2005, 06:50 PM
I agree somewhat with your maxwell render analysis. However, there is something to be said
for that overall well-lit look of a natural scene.

Of course, a more moody, atmospheric scene is another way to aproach it for a more
"artistic" flair.

lightblitter22
09-07-2005, 04:04 PM
I do cinematography on a small scale - the real thing, with real lights, environments, lenses, people and so on. Take it from me, Maxwell is a much more subtle, sophisticated and high-end renderer than AR. It would trash just about any renderer out there including MentalRay and Vray in an instant for a lot of photorealism tasks if the final release brings rendertimes down to more acceptable levels.

So you're looking at a speed-quality tradeoff. If you want the highest possible render quality, there's nothing out there that beats Maxwell's lighting and material simulation capabilities in my opinion. The GI simulation is excellent. Light-material interaction is excellent. Shading quality is excellent. Setup is a snap if you've done realworld photography or cinematography before.

If you need quick renders or don't have much CPU horsepower to throw around, AR is a better solution. It takes twenty times more manual tweaking and testrenders to get an acceptable result than Maxwell. But frametimes are shorter in general and more suited for animation. For stills, Maxwell is better imo.

The ideal solution would be to bake lighting into interiors with Maxwell and render with AR or another quick renderer from that point on. That capability may be in 1.0 (NL have said they are looking at baking), but at the moment M~W is more of an exciting nextgen rendertech demo for those of us who have the necessary CPU horsepower to throw behind it.

I'm not suggesting that AR may not at some point reach a similar level of sophistication as Maxwell. But it would take much better GI and shading algorithms than AR 2.5 currently has. The changes in 2.5 are fairly cosmetic imo. Renderspeed is better but overall render quality hasn't improved much.

Ph0n33z
09-07-2005, 05:06 PM
I could not agree with you more bro. I have been a huge fan of M~W from the beginning. Taking quality into consideration, it is unbeatable. The realistic rendering it is capable of is unsurpassed. However, as you know, it comes down to each individual users needs.

For me, I dont have a renderfarm or quad CPU, and therefore maxwell is not really practical. However, if they are able to bring down render speed once again (since the newer beta is roughly 4x faster) it will be a much more reliable and industry efficient rendering system.

fluffouille
09-07-2005, 07:28 PM
13 minute test.
1 area lights w/ area shadows
12 area lights w/ soft shadows
Sun with Hard Shadows
Light Probe for the sky.

200 stoch 20/40 AA 1/4 Jpg quality Low
Although I like the Maxwell test, the one you posted is the most interesting and nicest looking, and all for 13 minutes - great job!

ThePriest
09-07-2005, 08:54 PM
I do cinematography on a small scale - the real thing, with real lights, environments, lenses, people and so on. Take it from me, Maxwell is a much more subtle, sophisticated and high-end renderer than AR. It would trash just about any renderer out there including MentalRay and Vray in an instant for a lot of photorealism tasks if the final release brings rendertimes down to more acceptable levels.

So you're looking at a speed-quality tradeoff. If you want the highest possible render quality, there's nothing out there that beats Maxwell's lighting and material simulation capabilities in my opinion. The GI simulation is excellent. Light-material interaction is excellent. Shading quality is excellent. Setup is a snap if you've done realworld photography or cinematography before.

If you need quick renders or don't have much CPU horsepower to throw around, AR is a better solution. It takes twenty times more manual tweaking and testrenders to get an acceptable result than Maxwell. But frametimes are shorter in general and more suited for animation. For stills, Maxwell is better imo.

The ideal solution would be to bake lighting into interiors with Maxwell and render with AR or another quick renderer from that point on. That capability may be in 1.0 (NL have said they are looking at baking), but at the moment M~W is more of an exciting nextgen rendertech demo for those of us who have the necessary CPU horsepower to throw behind it.

I'm not suggesting that AR may not at some point reach a similar level of sophistication as Maxwell. But it would take much better GI and shading algorithms than AR 2.5 currently has. The changes in 2.5 are fairly cosmetic imo. Renderspeed is better but overall render quality hasn't improved much.

In theory a render engine like Maxwell would be a perfect solution.
Put into practice this time around it fails on many levels.
Given time, another company may come along with better solution
one that is carefully integrated into the host application.
Maxwell is not able to work with complex volumetrics, particle effects,
triggered events, code and many other essential functionalities.
While I don't doubt it's amazing ability to calculate accurate physical light,
sometimes the old fashioned way beats it hands down.
Currently in the state it lies, it's not a viable solution for anything other than product shots, architecture and simple animations at this stage in the game.
Perhaps in the future they'll improve on the things holding it back from being an
outstanding render engine.

For now, for me, it remains a novelty for impressing clients.
But nothing more.

lightblitter22
09-07-2005, 10:01 PM
Its a lot more than a 'novelty'. Consider for a second that you are doing a 120 minute all-CG feature with a fairly photoreal 'filmed' look comprised of 2,850 individual shots. Do you have any clue how many people and how much time it would take to light and render 2,850 shots to spec with a traditional renderer? A lot of people, a lot of time, and a lot of lost time to boot if you take into account all the testrenders that need to be done and all the final renders that don't come out right.

With Maxwell, one cinematographer/lighting designer helped by two or three mouse-wielding folks who implement the lighting designs could pull the whole thing off in a lot less time. That means you can focus less resources on lighting and rendering and more on getting your story and actors and environments right. Lighting design is a well worn occupation. The fact that Maxwell behaves just like the real thing means that you don't have to reinvent that craft with fudged digital lighting for biased rendering. You can do it the proper, old fashioned way and get a proper, old fashioned cinematographic look out of it that can be processed further in post.

The renderspeed issue is an issue at this stage, but if you consider how many hundred hours that renderer can save in terms of lighting setup with extended use, its actually worth using Maxwell and throwing a lot of CPUs behind it. In the long term that's more practical than always having the it-takes-time-to-light-a-render-well bottleneck in front of you all the time.

I agree with you that Maxwell still has functions that need to be implemented. But imagine for a second hat it gets hardware accelerated in the future. With other renderers that doesn't make as much sense. With Maxwell, the economics of it works out perfectly because of the setup time it saves in the long run. Its easier to blow $10,000 on a render accelerator card if you know that you're going to save a couple of hundred hours on the lighting work alone. Blow 10K on another renderer and your lighting setup will still put you behind schedule all the time, regardless of how fast you can render out shots.

K. Scott Gant
09-07-2005, 10:13 PM
I like Maxwell...but it's not ready for prime time. There are still way too many limitations on it for my tastes.

The speed is the main thing. It's WAY too expensive in terms of time. Which is why PRman isn't worried at the moment in losing it's crown as the top renderer for Movies at the moment. Also, with the new system they're implementing at Pixar with Lpics and such it's much easier to light than it used to be.

Maxwell is certainly heading in the right direction and maybe some day they'll actually have a product!

andronikos916
09-07-2005, 10:53 PM
I do not want to continue the discussion towards Maxwell vs Others but just to say some stuff about it...

1) NL is considering a hardware accelarated card in order to cut down render times. Not sure if they are going to actually do something like that but it was mentioned.

2) NL is under super heavy development:
New material editor
New UI,
Bake Option
Light meters
Other Optimizations etc...and better plugins.

Unfortunatelly I am not allowed to share anything guys but if you see some of the new maxwell renderings you will understand what I mean...

Imagine once you render with maxwell you can then change colors or textures and since it has all light information in the .mxi file automatically everything changes in 1sec!

Camera and Objects animation will be super fast. Only to calculate additional spots etc...

I do not want to say that this is going to be in the next update but there are stuff under your noses...

Lastly I am just a maxwell beta tester. Not a NL guy.

Soooo...lets continue talking and testing AR 2.5 here !

cy,
Andronikos
:)

K. Scott Gant
09-07-2005, 11:15 PM
Oh that's certainly nice to see what their up to! Very interesting indeed.

Yes, I'm quite impressed so far with what I've seen in AR 2.5 in the Demo. Looks like good things coming down on the rendering world, and AR 2.5 is just one of them.

ThePriest
09-07-2005, 11:59 PM
Call me old fashioned. I like to light my scene's myself.
There's a certain amount of trial and error in Maxwell, if you're not using the standard
skylight or sun-sky setup.
It sound like they're going to make a solution for tweaking lights later, that's great. I'm not faithless when it comes to NL, they have a great team.

Ernest Burden
09-08-2005, 12:31 AM
Call me old fashioned. I like to light my scene's myself.

Me, too. That's what I like about Maxwell. It makes sense to me in how light is used in a space. I was a Lightscape user for many years, and the rather arbitrary way that Cinema creates light is a hinderance.

Still, Maxwell is too literal sometimes, and Cinema offers so much beyond the 'real-world' mantra. They're both good. They're both too slow, too.

raycerx
09-08-2005, 12:37 AM
For whatever its worth Priest that image is absolutly stunning, wonderful 'color'. I share your passion for 'ol school' lighting. My love is more for traditional mediums so I have a much more ... hmmm organic outlook and approach to 3d rendering! All that hoopla aside. Can you tell me a bit more about the set up. I don't want to know your actual approach but what I am more interested in is what/how the NEW lights in Cinema are. My 9.5 should be here soon... I hope...
Sorry for the hijack. great job!

ThePriest
09-08-2005, 12:48 AM
For whatever its worth Priest that image is absolutly stunning, wonderful 'color'. I share your passion for 'ol school' lighting. My love is more for traditional mediums so I have a much more ... hmmm organic outlook and approach to 3d rendering! All that hoopla aside. Can you tell me a bit more about the set up. I don't want to know your actual approach but what I am more interested in is what/how the NEW lights in Cinema are. My 9.5 should be here soon... I hope...
Sorry for the hijack. great job!

Maybe it's the jpeg artifacts making it look good.

Mostly it's the speed increase with Area shadows, Cinema's always been able to produce them right? Just nowhere near as fast as now. If you tweak them and use them in the right places, they're an amazing complement to an already outstanding render engine.
In actual fact, I could have done without the GI completly and used several carefully placed omnis for a fake GI look.

All in all, I would say they've made some great improvements for a point release
Hopefully by version 10, they'll throw us something even better.

flingster
09-08-2005, 01:34 AM
In theory a render engine like Maxwell would be a perfect solution.
Put into practice this time around it fails on many levels.
....
Currently in the state it lies, it's not a viable solution for anything other than product shots, architecture and simple animations at this stage in the game.
Perhaps in the future they'll improve on the things holding it back from being an
outstanding render engine.

For now, for me, it remains a novelty for impressing clients.
But nothing more.

whats so bad about being a renderer for product shots and architecture? 3d rendering is not just about pixar movies ya know.
its far from perfect...but find me the alternative...i bet it impressed the clients though...its not always about speed or doing it the ole way...

flingster
09-08-2005, 01:40 AM
Maybe it's the jpeg artifacts making it look good.

Mostly it's the speed increase with Area shadows, Cinema's always been able to produce them right? Just nowhere near as fast as now. If you tweak them and use them in the right places, they're an amazing complement to an already outstanding render engine.
In actual fact, I could have done without the GI completly and used several carefully placed omnis for a fake GI look.

All in all, I would say they've made some great improvements for a point release
Hopefully by version 10, they'll throw us something even better.

no one doubts ARs abilities apart from fools... i'd agree for a point release its an improvement..and version 10 if they chuck us something better i'm with ya.
people knock ar but personally i think its pretty damn good...but its a bit of a horses for courses scenarios...you can't please all the people all the time.. what maxon have to do it look at ar and decide the direction they want/need to take and do the usual maxon by blowing our minds with FULL update....you mention maxwell falling short well ar falls short at the moment...but not as much as people would have you believe.
...anyway i don't mean to single out your posts but they raised some really interesting and thought provocing comments...cheers.

ThePriest
09-08-2005, 01:46 AM
lightblitter was talking about using it for full production Flingster
i'm saying it's not ready.

let's bring the conversation back to AR2.5

before this thread gets lost in the midst of a render-engine-war that i didn't intend to start

flingster
09-08-2005, 01:57 AM
lightblitter was talking about using it for full production Flingster
i'm saying it's not ready.

let's bring the conversation back to AR2.5

before this thread gets lost in the midst of a render-engine-war that i didn't intend to start

agreed...totally of topic...v sorry guys...
lets drag this back please...

:thumbsup:

Thalaxis
09-08-2005, 03:04 AM
let's bring the conversation back to AR2.5


Back to what again?

:D

andronikos916
09-08-2005, 03:13 AM
...so if AR's 2.5 area shadows are not better than R8.5 AR2 why we will be able to do better renderings? Only because we can have faster our results therefore tweak higher the settings?

If that is the case, still by end of 2005 we will have AR2.5 vs Vray thread and we will ask for better more sophistcate algorithms...

I do not want to say that the guys at Germany didn't do anything, just trying to understand why the did not spent their time rewritting AR so they can include bucket rendering for example and better GI...

thank you,
Andronikos

andronikos916
09-08-2005, 03:18 AM
any news by the way about FR st2 guys?

their gallery in not that impressive...Also if the quality and complexity is the same as in Max (and I guss it is) then again we will fall in that Vray comparisson again...

I might sound pesimistic and I hope, to prove me all wrong. maybe I had a bad day...

:)
thanx,
Andronikos

destro80
09-08-2005, 03:26 AM
...so if AR's 2.5 area shadows are not better than R8.5 AR2 why we will be able to do better renderings? Only because we can have faster our results therefore tweak higher the settings?

If that is the case, still by end of 2005 we will have AR2.5 vs Vray thread and we will ask for better more sophistcate algorithms...

I do not want to say that the guys at Germany didn't do anything, just trying to understand why the did not spent their time rewritting AR so they can include bucket rendering for example and better GI...

thank you,
Andronikos

I think the reason renders will be better is because now you can actually use area shadows.
Older versions of C4D have area shadows, but they are so slow as to be useless (for me anyway). The other shadow types seem to have improved hugely as well. Much better definition and no more weird faceting. I don't see the upgrade as a massive jump forward, but the gap between AR and VRAY seems to have closed up alot.

Per-Anders
09-08-2005, 03:30 AM
hmm? i'm not sure what you mean there. AR2.5's area shadows are much better than AR2's, for one thing they truly reflect the actual shape of the area lights in question, then there's the ability to bring up the shadow strength beyond 100%, and now there are area shadows on distant lights too. The lights have been enhanced in other ways too, and the better compositing tags etc. Then the engine itself with tis' better AA algorithm giving huge render speed increases.

The whole issue of area lights is a huge one for creating good renders within a decent timeframe and giving total control. GI is a wonderful thing, but decent lighting is better still, and I think was a higher priority.

The sum total of what's in there will allow you to create better renderings. If you care about speed increases then this is a very important update. If you only care about quality, then there ahve also been improvements there with eh area lights, their falloff shapes, the corrected blurring effects, the compositing tags, the lights falloff colors, the correct light falloff with inverse square falloff etc.

Of course if you only care about GI quality, and don't care about time, then you can do what you could do before, switch on brute force method (stochastic) up the bounces, up the samples, and wait. You could also conceivably use standard too and beef up those settings. And finally you can use third party offerings, Maxwell, Final render will be appearing soon (and will knock a few socks off) etc.

I think the differences are quite huge personally and what theyv'e changed is a hell of a lot, with all of that you should be able to make signifigantly better renders. Even if it were only for the time improvements that allow more exploring of the capabilities.

lllab
09-08-2005, 11:13 AM
area shadows are much more beautifull in AR2.5! (and a lot faster:-)

cheers
stefan

twilight
09-08-2005, 12:10 PM
Also if the quality and complexity is the same as in Max (and I guss it is) then again we will fall in that Vray comparisson again...

That's inevitable. Vray is still one of the best and fastest solutions out there.
I've checked the 9.5 demo and i think the improvements to the AR are much welcomed but still far from what we needed. More tricks to fake a proper GI engine...

I'm not so impressed with AR2.5... but i'm doing my best to take it to the limits and see if it can beat vray (in speed and quality).

Sorry if i sound pessimist, but i was expecting a bit more than this from maxon.

fluffouille
09-08-2005, 02:53 PM
There are no tricks to fake a proper GI engine here, just new area lights.
In short, that's the way these lights diffuse their light which is much more realistic and "proper" than it was, and consequently the way their area shadows are cast are also more realistic (and a lot faster, so we want to use them more).

Nothing has been done with GI, and there are no cheap tricks anyway, only result counts.

But I agree, we need a lot more to compete with Vray - that's not something for a point update, though.

MJV
09-08-2005, 04:30 PM
I just don't get the endless whining and complaining about AR. The latest improvements are just rediculously great. My belief is these people constantly complaining simply have no clue what they're talking about and couldn't render their way out of a paper bag if it was on fire to start with. Really I'd like them to all just STFU! I am really sick of it. Face it guys, if you can't succeed with Cinema's renderer it's because you suck.

xeno3d
09-08-2005, 04:34 PM
This is completely off topic but does anyone know why the hell I get 2 or 3 emails per reply to cgtalk threads?

dann_stubbs
09-08-2005, 04:35 PM
This is completely off topic but does anyone know why the hell I get 2 or 3 emails per reply to cgtalk threads?

i do too now and then - i don't know why either, just started happening a little while ago...

doens't always do it though sometimes i get the normal one

dann

andronikos916
09-08-2005, 04:50 PM
Mee too.. I receive 7 e-mails about the: So impressed with AR2.5 thread that we currently talking...

:deal:

Continuumx
09-08-2005, 05:15 PM
This is completely off topic but does anyone know why the hell I get 2 or 3 emails per reply to cgtalk threads?

Go into your UserCP (look at the top of your screen for CGTALK, it is a menu option. Look to the side and click on subscriptions(threads that you are subcribed to, every thread that you submit a reply automatically subscribes you to that thread), there you can change your subscription from instant (means you get a notice everytime there is a reply to no email, or only one email by choosing the "daily" option, there are a number of other items as well.)

twilight
09-08-2005, 05:32 PM
My belief is these people constantly complaining simply have no clue what they're talking about and couldn't render their way out of a paper bag if it was on fire to start with. Really I'd like them to all just STFU! I am really sick of it. Face it guys, if you can't succeed with Cinema's renderer it's because you suck.

That's your opinion. I bet maxon will improve the AR module because you don't suck. You're the best, what can i say? Congratulations...
It's a shame, such a good program as C4D only has a decent user... and it's even worst it's you! So, why don't you take some of your own advice and STFU???!!

MJV
09-08-2005, 05:44 PM
That's your opinion. I bet maxon will improve the AR module because you don't suck. You're the best, what can i say? Congratulations...
It's a shame, such a good program as C4D only has a decent user... and it's even worst it's you! So, why don't you take some of your own advice and STFU???!!

It's not just me, there are many great Cinema users not complaining about AR. There seems to be a very obvious direct correlation between skill level and satisfaction with AR, so maybe you should stop whining for a half a second and actually render something, spend some time learning how Cinema works instead of learning how other programs work differently. We're all sick of it and I'm sure everyone would be interested in seeing what aspect of your amazing skill is being held back by Cinema.

lllab
09-08-2005, 05:53 PM
well, not again the same old fight, thats boring.

i must say formyself i am very happy with the update, it works perfectly smooth, all the small improvements, and all the BIG ones - this is fun to work with!

of course this update was not focused on GI, i guess this will be in the next major update wich probably will need some core rewrites, but it was a hell of a speed and quality increase in areas where, at least myself, wouldn't have believed it that this was possible.
-i have speedups from 300-400% in most files, in the end it just counts that it makes alot better images, at least for me. and it showed that maxon can do excellent new stuff.

the new area lights are absolutely beautiful, just test it out.

itis not only the gi engine what makes a rendersoftware but the whole workflow and setup. 9.5 sets new great standards here. 9.5 renders alot speedier and more beautifull than 9.1, so well i guess it is a quite good update then...

cheers
stefan

twilight
09-08-2005, 05:58 PM
Then again, it's your opinion.
You assume you're good and other people (or maybe just me) suck. Good for you!
So, i must assume that, because you think C4D is the perfect, all other people (or again just me) should think it is perfect too!
If it is so perfect why did maxon had so much work with 9.5? You claimed that AR 1 was perfect, but obviously it wasn't.
You will thank all the people who complained when AR3 comes out. Unless you're so full of yourself that you think it only got better because you thought it was perfect to begin with.

Anyway, it looks you're pretty happy with it as it is.. so what's your problem?? Shouldn't you be using it, instead of replying to this kind of threads?
Oh! You wanted to say you had enough??? I read it the first time, i understood it. Bye bye.
See you in AR3. What? You won't be using it? Is it for lame people always wanting more??

What's wrong with pointing out the weakenesses in C4D? Isn't it the way it's suppose to evolve? Apparently you think you're as good as it gets. As far as i'm concerned i couldn't care less about that. But i do care about the quality of my work, and so far i can't achieve th quality i need with C4D.
If it makes you happy to think i'm a retard and it's the 1st time i use C4D go ahead and feel happy about it. I do have a company to run and the fact that AR 2.5 doens't quite cut it reflects on my expenses with 3dsmax and vray!

andronikos916
09-08-2005, 06:05 PM
9.5 is indeed amazing updated...maybe we are too spoiled...hehe!

One think that I love about AR is that you can do all kind of renderings and that is very impoortant.

Some people like me want super easy and fast GI and photo results but others need more than that...

So let see what our new AR2.5 is capable of doing...

Maybe I missed that answer but what about: the "animation increase: render time bug... any news about it?

thanx,
Andronikos

MJV
09-08-2005, 06:13 PM
What's wrong with pointing out the weakenesses in C4D? Isn't it the way it's suppose to evolve? Apparently you think you're as good as it gets. As far as i'm concerned i couldn't care less about that. But i do care about the quality of my work, and so far i can't achieve th quality i need with C4D.
If it makes you happy to think i'm a retard and it's the 1st time i use C4D go ahead and feel happy about it. I do have a company to run and the fact that AR 2.5 doens't quite cut it reflects on my expenses with 3dsmax and vray!

There are weaknesses in Cinema but the problem is you show no indication of knowing what they are. I had a look through your other posts as well as your website and nowhere did I find a single render from you or any concrete example of what you think you're talking about. It's obvious you just don't know, so why don't you just admit to yourself that you don't and try learning a little.

twilight
09-08-2005, 06:18 PM
You didn't look hard enough.
I remember a long thread named "Vray like renders" where i posted an example and none of the C4D masters was able to achieve the same results as vray, not even close.
I also had a look at your gallery and i can understand why you're so happy with C4D now...

Sorry, i thought you actually used GI or C4D to its limits.
If i were you i'd be e-mailing maxon to keep C4D the way it is! It's great to do xmas scenes!!!
As for archi viz... well, let me know when you try it.

MJV
09-08-2005, 06:35 PM
You didn't look hard enough.
I remember a long thread named "Vray like renders" where i posted an example and none of the C4D masters was able to achieve the same results as vray, not even close.
I also had a look at your gallery and i can understand why you're so happy with C4D now...

Sorry, i thought you actually used GI or C4D to its limits.
If i were you i'd be e-mailing maxon to keep C4D the way it is! It's great to do xmas scenes!!!
As for archi viz... well, let me know when you try it.

This kind of thing doesn't qualify as Arch Vis?

http://www.mvpny.com/Presentation/LivingRoom1R1L5.jpg

http://www.mvpny.com/Presentation/LivingRoomBright4R1.jpg

http://www.mvpny.com/ChristmasFolder/OzoneTest12.jpg

http://www.mvpny.com/ChristmasFolder/NewLandscap6R1.jpg

http://www.mvpny.com/ChristmasFolder/HoExt7NewCandymanCR1.jpg

I guess I need to see your gallery to be enlightened.

ThePriest
09-08-2005, 06:45 PM
Will both of you go find your own thread to fight in!

I started this thread by saying I'm very impressed thus far with the improvements
made in AR 2.5. Of course they'll get better in the future, for now
make the most of them or if you need and have alternatives, use them.

Is it really worth arguing over?

twilight
09-08-2005, 06:50 PM
LOL

Ok. I'm sorry again.
No that doesn't qualify to me as arch viz. It's not even close photorealistic. It looks like a bad day at disney.

But as long as you like i have nothing against it. Get it?
I'm not trashing your work. I believe you went through a lot to achieve those images but that's not the kind of image i'm selling to my clients.
Different people have different needs, that's all.

This is the kind of images i sell to my clients:

http://www.streetdogstudio.com/temp/room.jpg

I have to say it again: it's easy to assume other people are complete morons or retards, but most of them aren't. They're just trying to make a better work or acomplish something better. If you think you can help you're welcome, i don't have any problems with that. But if you just woke up in a bad mood and decided to troll around cgtalk... maybe it's a good day to be offline.

ThePriest
09-08-2005, 06:54 PM
Do you have a link to that scene Twilight?

AdamT
09-08-2005, 06:55 PM
I seem to recall that there were several C4D renders that were on a par with the VRay render in terms of lighting. I don't think anyone went to much trouble with textures or filling in items that didn't come with the scene.

Overall I'm sure VRay is still a better GI option, but with 9.5's speedups for area lights and blurry effects, plus AO and baking, I'd say the game is a lot closer than it was. It'll be interesting to see how fR-2 stacks up. [Is it here yet? :)]

twilight
09-08-2005, 06:59 PM
Sorry mate, I think that scene is long gone. The thread was erased.
I can try to put the scene online again if you like to have a go at it.

Oh, and i'm sorry for hijacking your thread. It wasn't my intention.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to trash C4D or anyone here.

MJV
09-08-2005, 07:02 PM
So all you do is arch vis and that's the best you can show? I spent a few minutes and did my own more photorealistic rendering of that scene back in that thread. Don't have time to go dig for it but you're welcome to if you like.

twilight
09-08-2005, 07:09 PM
LOL

You're too funny mate.
Show us all you're amazing results! You're definetly a master!
I wonder what you'd be able to do for your own scenes if you had the time!

By the waym arch viz is not all i do.
How about you? Is it still too far from december 25th to start working?

ThePriest
09-08-2005, 07:11 PM
Sorry mate, I think that scene is long gone. The thread was erased.
I can try to put the scene online again if you like to have a go at it.

Oh, and i'm sorry for hijacking your thread. It wasn't my intention.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to trash C4D or anyone here.

Sure, post it again, I want to show you something.

twilight
09-08-2005, 07:36 PM
Here's what i was able to find on my backups:

http://www.streetdogstudio.com/temp/room.zip

Sorry for the portuguese names and for some mess in the file. At a certain point i switched to vray and my final scene is in 3dsmax.

Good luck!

Canadianboy
09-08-2005, 08:44 PM
Twillight and MJV plase stop arguing about this on here why dont u do this in an instant messenger or something cause this thread will end up gettin closed and we are already way of topic..

flingster
09-08-2005, 10:15 PM
chill out a little guys...this is doing neither of you any good...
its not the way to discuss things...
please keep on topic from this point on ...
eg So impressed with AR2.5

are you
aren't you
reasoning why or why not
please keep personal comments and matters of taste on each other work to yourselves, i'm not sure this is a battle either side can win to be honest or should want to by highlighting each others work...not good practice.

please kiss and make up and get on with it guys...cheers.
:beer:

JamesMK
09-08-2005, 10:36 PM
please kiss
I'm sure you can leave that bit out though, but the rest makes sense :D



.

ThePriest
09-08-2005, 11:16 PM
Thanks Twilight

16minute render.
No more floating chairs, fewer artifacts, wouldn't you agree?

flingster
09-08-2005, 11:34 PM
I'm sure you can leave that bit out though, but the rest makes sense :D



.

ok then no tongues...lol..

AdamT
09-08-2005, 11:46 PM
Thanks Twilight

16minute render.
No more floating chairs, fewer artifacts, wouldn't you agree?
Looks excellent, and awesome render time! Just a bit of artifacting on the floorboard at lower right, but easy to fix in PS or with a comp tag.

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 12:19 AM
the Priest,

Very nice time and the lack of "mildew" is impressive.
May I ask what settings you used? machine?

(I've waited till the rush calmed down and just started to play with the demo
the last couple days. The sample files are nice and the thread is very informative.
Looking forward to see the documentation and more experiments.
Thanks to you all.)

TIA,

ThePriest
09-09-2005, 12:26 AM
the Priest,

Very nice time and the lack of "mildew" is impressive.
May I ask what settings you used? machine?

(I've waited till the rush calmed down and just started to play with the demo
the last couple days. The sample files are nice and the thread is very informative.
Looking forward to see the documentation and more experiments.
Thanks to you all.)

TIA,

Thanks Vid2k2 and thanks AdamT
Same technique as ever, an area light in every window, a blue sky and some sun.
Area Lights 50% accuracy - 10 min samples - 80 max

Radiosity - bounces/diffuse 3
accuracy - 40
stach - 300
min - 20
max - 100
AA 2/8

PC - 3.6ghz 2mg l2cache 2G-Ram

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 12:50 AM
Thanks for the quick reply.
I'll take those figures for a test run and see what I get.
Didn't mean to pry wrt your PC, just that it makes a
difference in what render time I get on my Mac 1.8/2GB ram :)

ThirdEye
09-09-2005, 01:30 AM
Will you all calm down please? MJV and Twilight i'm almost tempted to delete every single post you two wrote in this thread, they're all off topic. As suggested by someone else please keep discussing using an instant messenger or emails, the whole forum will thank you. This thread is about AR 2.5 and its pro's/con's, not about personal fights, not about Vray, not about Maxwell, not about Mental Ray. I'm all for a new VRay-AR comparison, especially now that we can count on AR2.5, i'd be curious to see where AR can beat Vray (i guess speed now) and where Vray still is ahead (GI irradiance mapping for sure since nothing changed in C4D's, anything else?), just do it in a new thread everyone can join. Thanks.
Twilight: personally i think some people managed to get a good light quality from your scene, maybe i'm blind but i believe that even the example posted in this thread is comparable to yours, especially if you consider the rendertime. Do you have any other scenes you made in Max-Vray you're proud of that we can use for the comparison? If you feel like doing it please feel free to go ahead, but use another thread, i'd be happy to join and see what i can get myself with AR2.5.

Janine
09-09-2005, 01:37 AM
i'd be happy to join and see what i can get myself with AR2.5.

Me too!

Oh sorry... yes, new thread please. ;)

andronikos916
09-09-2005, 03:12 AM
OOppss...Janine is here...carefull guys!

hehe!
:buttrock:

twilight
09-09-2005, 01:29 PM
@ThePriest
16minute render.
No more floating chairs, fewer artifacts, wouldn't you agree?
I wouldn't call that a final image, it has too much grain.
I agree that it looks a lot better than most attempts made in the old thread and i will give this scene another try in AR 2.5 to see how far it gets.

@flingster
ok then no tongues...lol..
LOL
If you put it that way i'll keep quiet!! Sorry MJV, i wasn't aware of any kissing. I'm sorry i argued with you!

@AdamT
Looks excellent, and awesome render time! Just a bit of artifacting on the floorboard at lower right, but easy to fix in PS or with a comp tag.
No way! No photoshop! This is AR 2.5 only. Photoshop skills will be welcomed in the adobe forum. Isn't photoshop OT here?

:)


ThirdEye
Twilight: personally i think some people managed to get a good light quality from your scene, maybe i'm blind but i believe that even the example posted in this thread is comparable to yours, especially if you consider the rendertime.
I can't agree. Not a single attempt was even close to the vray results. Some lighting was good, but all of them showed too many artifacts.
The ones that didn't were photoshoped. There's no point on getting a bit close but with a few artifacts.
If we're going to start a vray vs. AR2.5 comparison the results must be unbiased.

Do you have any other scenes you made in Max-Vray you're proud of that we can use for the comparison? If you feel like doing it please feel free to go ahead, but use another thread, i'd be happy to join and see what i can get myself with AR2.5.

I do have some other scenes but i think this one is enough for the test.
Most people in here wouldn't even share the scene to others, let alone give away furniture models...
I did that and still i feel most people think i'm a retard just wasting everybody's time.
Am i the only one that would like a better AR module???
Look where our threads led us! Would we have AR2.5 now if it wasn't for all the complains (not to mention the n-gons!)?


@everyone
I'm sorry if i sometimes sound a bit harsh. That's not my intention. I'm a really peaceful guy and i'm not here just to spoil your day.
I'd like to see C4D grow even bigger and i'd like to quit 3dsmax+vray a.s.a.p.
But to do that i have to present my clients with the kind of quality they're used to.
Right now i'm starting a project where i picked C4D over 3dsmax. I'd like to be able to do that with all the projects.
That's why i ask for a better AR module, not to start a fight.

MrBraun
09-09-2005, 01:44 PM
Hello to all: see this !! ;)

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/index.php?showtopic=6348

Tnx for viewing !! ;)

Ernest Burden
09-09-2005, 02:18 PM
Am i the only one that would like a better AR module???

No, you are not. AR2.5 is a step in the right direction, but it isn't good enough for the current state of render products on the market. History tells us Maxon will come through, I suppose AR3, but 2.5 is just a band-aid.

If FinalRender-St2 is what it is described as being, AR won't matter as much. When the next vRay is out, and the Cinema bridge, AR won't matter as much. But for now, it matters a whole lot and 2.5 doesn't make me very happy.

AdamT
09-09-2005, 02:22 PM
I agree that raw results should be shown, but I also think it's more than valid to post PS results as long as it involves only minimal touchup (like 5-10 minutes work). Put it this way: if one engine produces a clean result in 4 hours and another produces the same result in 30 minutes plus 5 minutes in PS, which would you rather have? Plus, I've never sold an image that didn't have post work done on it, and I'm sure I never will.

Ernest Burden
09-09-2005, 03:16 PM
I've never sold an image that didn't have post work done on it, and I'm sure I never will.

Me, either.

Ask yourself--what is my 'money app'? Which application is the most important one for how you earn a living? Being a 3D-based illustrator I would be tempted to say my CAD program or Cinema, but in fact those only produce partial results. Where I distinguish my work is Photoshop. Without Photoshop I would be handing in C4D work, not my work.

However, cleaner results in less time is a very important step in the process. So I'm only about 0.5 more impressed with AR2.5 over AR2. It doesn't solve any of the problems I gained by switching to Cinema.

twilight
09-09-2005, 03:48 PM
Plus, I've never sold an image that didn't have post work done on it, and I'm sure I never will.
True. I have nothing against PS. I do post-processing in photography, let alone 3D.
But most of the arch viz clients require animation, hence the need for a clean GI output.

fluffouille
09-09-2005, 03:56 PM
It doesn't solve any of the problems I gained by switching to Cinema.
Which problems, if I may?
We've seen that with 2.5, there is less artifacting problems, a hell of a lot better rendertimes and gorgeous area lights.
I agree there is still some work to do, especially with GI, but the tools provided with AR2.5 should really be enough to give great results, and solve most of the problems.

I'm not flaming you, just curious what are your problems with AR and want to check if they could be avoided better with the new release?

I personnaly think that actually in the market, Vray is the one that offer the best quality/rendertime ratio, and if you tackle animation, that's even more true.

Ernest Burden
09-09-2005, 04:21 PM
We've seen that with 2.5, there is less artifacting problems, a hell of a lot better rendertimes and gorgeous area lights.

I'm not flaming you, just curious what are your problems with AR and want to check if they could be avoided better with the new release?


I've been writing about these problems in several other threads, so forgive me everyone for saying it all again...but he asked:

AR2 introduced the 'camera animation' GI mode for doing non-flickering GI animation, with the manual saying it was there to speed up GI work, it has a time-accumulating bug that does the opposite, making it 100% useless (a 0:03:00 minute frame, after 50 frames, is up to 1:30:00), leaving stochastic mode the only functional way to animate with GI. This does not appear to have been addressed in 2.5

I have tested the GI speed of 2.5 demo vs. AR2 without AA or area shadows and found them to be the same. (Other people say differently, but my test show no base GI speed increase). Yes, area shadows and AA are faster, but I work without either for a result time I can live with.

AR2.5 does not add anything to improve the base GI result, meaning how samples are used, that sort of thing. It does not add any 'wizard' or method to make better use of the settings as they are, so its still guess, test, repeat. So it is, but some app help would be a nice addition. Tests take unbillable time. And lights cannot use IES files to produce more realistic effects.

Problems:
GI renders too slowly for a busy workflow
no viable GI animation method
settings guesswork to balance rendertime/quality
lights stuck in 1998 CG standards (new shaped areas may reduce this issue)

All new to my work upon switching to C4D, none fixed by AR2.5

Otherwise I love C4D and am not looking to switch to something else.

lllab
09-09-2005, 04:52 PM
Hi Earnest,

seems to me you are as myself the perfect FR customer...

have you preordered it already?, i got a mail saying that they are well ahead and will release at the end of september as promised when i ordered.

let me say i am very happy with the upgrade, showing a lot of good new stuff( i yet have to learn and explore) but as some pointed out, for sure the GI engine has to be next thing (plus iES lights). but as we saw, i guess maxon is well aware of this now.

i think it is very good that there is a lot of competition in render-technology. we have some external rendersystems soon, and i am quite sure vray will come sooner or later. quite soon i guess the 3dapp will be more like a main "animation operating system" and all major apps will be able to render with most common renderengines.

cheers
stefan

fluffouille
09-09-2005, 04:55 PM
I was not saying that GI has been improved, just that the new area lights and AO (for example), allow to workaround current GI weaknesses, by making better images for less rendertime.
Baking has also been improved to allow for GI animation, especially over Net Render, without the problems you just mentionned (I agree it's a real problem).
As for the wizard, I don't see how they could do that, since every scene is different, every light situation different.
AR2.5 plugs a bit of the hole, I really think it's an improvements, while waiting for overall better GI and some new Maxon tricks for an eventual AR3 :)

P.S: I sound like a fanboy, but I'm not. I sincerely think they did a good job here, providing us with useful tools which create great results.
On all the projects I've been using it, it has always helped me create better images faster, so I'm satisfied for that part, even though there is still some improvement to be done.

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 05:10 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't wait for an 'eventual AR 3', whenever the hell that will materialize. I'm waiting for Maxwell 1.0 and Finalrender stage 2. If those don't cut it either on renderquality or speed grounds, its XSI for me from that point. At least it has MentalRay 1.4, which is a renderer I trust to get the job done. It also has a shadertree that's worked for me in the past and likely will work for me again. It'll take a beefier machine to do complex stuff with XSI, but I'd rather splash out on a couple of extra CPUs than wait two more years for render improvements that may never materialize. AR 2.5 is a damn disappointment as far as I'm concerned. Same renderer. Same look. Same limitations. The new area shadows and blurries change nothing for me. I still don't like the renderquality. I would have expected something much better after a whole year of waiting.

ThirdEye
09-09-2005, 05:13 PM
I wouldn't call that a final image, it has too much grain.
I agree that it looks a lot better than most attempts made in the old thread and i will give this scene another try in AR 2.5 to see how far it gets.

grain... some people like it and look for it (look at some Maxwell users for example), some other people dislike it (including myself, if i need the grain i want to be free to add it where and when needed in Photoshop). However that image took just 16 minutes, while your render in Vray originally took much more. I guess it's just a matter of using higher quality settings (and of course getting prepared to higher rendertimes)

Ernest Burden
09-09-2005, 05:16 PM
seems to me you are as myself the perfect FR customer...

have you preordered it already?, i got a mail saying that they are well ahead and will release at the end of september as promised when i ordered.

quite soon i guess the 3dapp will be more like a main "animation operating system" and all major apps will be able to render with most common renderengines.

I did order a copy of FR2, though being ahead is funny since it was going to be out 1 Sept.

A few years ago I suggested that MAX had become a 3D OS, and might as well be marketed as such. I don't think it has. Anyway, yes, I look forward to the day that C4D joins MAX in that catagory.


Baking has also been improved to allow for GI animation, especially over Net Render, without the problems you just mentionned (I agree it's a real problem).
As for the wizard, I don't see how they could do that, since every scene is different, every light situation different.

On all the projects I've been using it, it has always helped me create better images faster, so I'm satisfied for that part, even though there is still some improvement to be done.

Ah, baking. Yes, that is important, and I await my copy of 9.5 to put it to immediate use. However that and the better area shadows are not part of AR2.5, which is what this thread is about.

Wizard? Lightscape had one, it worked pretty well. You could always tweek as your knowledge of the fine points grew, but at its basic it worked very well.

Speaking of Lightscape, it produced better images faster than Cinema. But it couldn't do so much of what C4D can, so I needed to move on. But it was mostly a move backwards for speed and quality. But onward...

fluffouille
09-09-2005, 05:17 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't wait for an 'eventual AR 3', whenever the hell that will materialize. I'm waiting for Maxwell 1.0 and Finalrender stage 2. If those don't cut it either on renderquality or speed grounds, its XSI for me from that point. At least it has MentalRay 1.4, which is a renderer I trust to get the job done. It also has a shadertree that's worked for me in the past and likely will work for me again. It'll take a beefier machine to do complex stuff with XSI, but I'd rather splash out on a couple of extra CPUs than wait two more years for render improvements that may never materialize. AR 2.5 is a damn disappointment as far as I'm concerned. Same renderer. Same look. Same limitations. The new area shadows and blurries change nothing for me. I still don't like the renderquality. I would have expected something much better after a whole year of waiting.
Use XSI if you like, if you think it will get your job done. Nobody is forcing anybody to use this or that :)

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 05:18 PM
Grain added in post doesn't work because its not part of the fabric of how the overall image was rendered. Grain in other media (HD video, film) has a very different look and behavior from grain that's just slapped on as a 2D post layer. It actually adds to the depth and texture and realism of the image a lot whereas post grain often looks like a fine layer of mist slapped onto it.

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 05:21 PM
Use XSI if you like, if you think it will get your job done. Nobody is forcing anybody to use this or that :)

I'm not dying to work with XSI's UI. But if you look at how well MentalRay renders in it, its hard not to feel like switching for the sake of getting better image quality and deeper control.

fluffouille
09-09-2005, 05:42 PM
True, Mental Ray is a great render engine.

lllab
09-09-2005, 05:44 PM
if i used xsi my jobs would not be done in time. mental ray is only good for some areas, not so good for archviz. (one main cometitor jumped from mentalray to vray p.e.)

and xsi is defenitly not a solution for everyone...

my2cents

cheers
stefan

p.s i still havent managed to try baker, hope on weekend...

ThirdEye
09-09-2005, 05:50 PM
True, Mental Ray is a great render engine.

Agreed, it's an awesome renderer but its finalgather and globalillumination aren't that special, i think they're more or less on par with our GI. But if lightblitter aka rendermania feels like using it i can't wait for it. Some people just do nothing but complaining and discussing, it'd be nice to get some kind of contribution to the forum once in a while.

ThePriest
09-09-2005, 06:04 PM
Twilight, I added the grain(noise) in post. The image was pretty clear for the time rendered.

twilight
09-09-2005, 06:48 PM
Twilight, I added the grain(noise) in post. The image was pretty clear for the time rendered.
Show us the result straight out of C4D.

Simon Wicker
09-09-2005, 06:50 PM
Grain added in post doesn't work because its not part of the fabric of how the overall image was rendered. Grain in other media (HD video, film) has a very different look and behavior from grain that's just slapped on as a 2D post layer. It actually adds to the depth and texture and realism of the image a lot whereas post grain often looks like a fine layer of mist slapped onto it.

i have no idea what kind of crack you are smoking but every single frame of cg rendered for use in film has grain added in post. if the grain doesn't match the film stock or capture device then the compositor hasn't done his job correctly. grain created during the render process doesn't work at all because the grain seen in film is different according to the layer recording the information (red green or blue) and how that individual layer reactes to the amount of light falling on it (underexposed, normal exposed and overexposed areas of the plate will all have different grain characteristics).

the kind of grain added during the render process comes from errors in stochastic sampling which does not match any kind of film/capture related grain.

maxwells grain means it is useless for compositing because although the grain may look filmic it will not match exactly the live action plate. when compositing you must start from a grain free image. in this respect AR2.5 produces a much better image for use in film.

cheers, simon w.

Janine
09-09-2005, 06:55 PM
Grain added in post doesn't work because its not part of the fabric of how the overall image was rendered.

:eek: Ow, my jaw just dropped on my foot... *clutches foot in pain*

MJV
09-09-2005, 07:20 PM
Agreed, it's an awesome renderer but its finalgather and globalillumination aren't that special, i think they're more or less on par with our GI. But if lightblitter aka rendermania feels like using it i can't wait for it. Some people just do nothing but complaining and discussing, it'd be nice to get some kind of contribution to the forum once in a while.

Our GI is about the same as Finalgather but offers so much better feedback that I'd it's actually way way better than Finalgather.

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 07:30 PM
Yes MJV. AR is the best renderer in the world. Best GI engine in the industry. Best motionblur quality anywhere. Deepest shading toolset this side of PRman. And then there are the blurry reflections and new area lights. Wow. I'm totally blown away with it. Even with full frame AA on I can render a frame in under one hour. And the new 32bit HDR preview. Amazing. You can push the sliders all the way in either direction without the image turning into Lego. How did they do it? Its a miracle.

And all those of us who complain about having to use the old Cebas stago 0 GI algorithm four releases down the line are dumbasses. Same goes for post effects. They are supposed to cancel each other out. How else would post effects work. While we're at it, why wait for Maxwell or FR at all? They should cancel those renderers because AR is obviously so superior in every way. That's why the whole industry is rushing to render their stuff on AR. Its a light in the darkness, a bundle of innovative ideas in a landscape dotted with crusty old rendertech.

Can I be a Maxon beta tester now? I've learned to lie to sell AR to people at any cost after all.

Rich-Art
09-09-2005, 07:49 PM
I don't know about the rest of the forum members, but I get the feeling that you don't like AR.


Peace,
Rich-Art. :thumbsup:

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 08:07 PM
I've had a chance to do some test renders now using twilight's scene(?).
Thank you for having posted that scene in the first place.

The scene had some lights in it, so I didn't bother to replace them (as per the priest)
but, had from a while ago, turned some off and made the other lights
non-volumetric since they added to the mildew / artifacts and increased render time.
None the less, the lights are the same "arrangement" in 9.x and 9.5 demo.

Next, I adjusted the radiosity fields in 9.x and the GI fields in 9.5 to those numbers
that Priest had used in reply to my post ... and set the AA to 2x2 /8x8.
Sorry about the reduced file size restraints. Here are the results:

MJV
09-09-2005, 08:08 PM
I just said it's better than Finalgather, which I know something about and obviously you don't. I didn't say it was the best there is.

Yes MJV. AR is the best renderer in the world. Best GI engine in the industry. Best motionblur quality anywhere. Deepest shading toolset this side of PRman. And then there are the blurry reflections and new area lights. Wow. I'm totally blown away with it. Even with full frame AA on I can render a frame in under one hour. And the new 32bit HDR preview. Amazing. You can push the sliders all the way in either direction without the image turning into Lego. How did they do it? Its a miracle.

And all those of us who complain about having to use the old Cebas stago 0 GI algorithm four releases down the line are dumbasses. Same goes for post effects. They are supposed to cancel each other out. How else would post effects work. While we're at it, why wait for Maxwell or FR at all? They should cancel those renderers because AR is obviously so superior in every way. That's why the whole industry is rushing to render their stuff on AR. Its a light in the darkness, a bundle of innovative ideas in a landscape dotted with crusty old rendertech.

Can I be a Maxon beta tester now? I've learned to lie to sell AR to people at any cost after all.

Continuumx
09-09-2005, 08:09 PM
I still fail to see why there is a quest for the "All in ONE...ALL YOU EVER NEED IS ONE RENDER ENGINE".

Clearly the best combination in my mind is when you can take advantage of each of them and use them together as tools to achieve your artistic vision whether that is painterly, sketchy, CG or photographic.

I am still impressed with AR2.5 and see it as a excellent tool asset in my render toolset.

twilight
09-09-2005, 08:12 PM
vid2k2, your thumbnails look good but the larger images aren't clear enough to see if there are any GI artifacts or just compression artifacts. Any chance of showing us a clearer image?
You look like you're heading the right way.

ThirdEye
09-09-2005, 08:14 PM
Yes MJV. AR is the best renderer in the world.

nope, but it's one of the best renderers around, no doubts about it

Best GI engine in the industry. Best motionblur quality anywhere.

nope, but that'll change i hope

Deepest shading toolset this side of PRman.

i hope to see texture tree's as soon as possible

And then there are the blurry reflections and new area lights. Wow. I'm totally blown away with it.

yes, they're really worth a wow, if you ever tried other apps' you'd know C4D has the best area lights on the market and the fastest blurry reflections too.

Even with full frame AA on I can render a frame in under one hour. And the new 32bit HDR preview. Amazing. You can push the sliders all the way in either direction without the image turning into Lego. How did they do it? Its a miracle.

you didn't even understand what the HDRI preview slider's for, congratulations

Can I be a Maxon beta tester now? I've learned to lie to sell AR to people at any cost after all.

apply for a job at Maxon marketing then, beta testing is for people who like to spend their hours to make sure everything is ok and to push Maxon to make C4D a better product.

Wanna know my personal opinion? I had enough.

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 08:17 PM
twilight,

I have no idea how to get a larger rez image uploaded.
I thought that saving for web via PS would reduce the fie size
enough didn't get it down to the required 100kb or less.

The render times were:
9.x= 24:29
9.5= 24:44

iMac G5 / single 1.8 / 2 GB ram / Panther

JIII
09-09-2005, 08:32 PM
vid2k2, I just do a screen cap. command-shift-4 and then export the resulting PDF file as a jpg in preview. it should give you sizes that are quite managable.

-j3

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 08:37 PM
J3, thanks, that's exactly what I did but the screen cap is a PDF
that's 703kb. From there, I downsized in PS till the server would let me upload.

Thanks

amoeba
09-09-2005, 08:41 PM
I find these derogatory remarks really tedious, just because an individual finds aspects of another program stronger than C4D s/he is belittled and humiliated for having an alternative view. I’m sick and tired of reading "I’m hoping Cinema Version XXX will become the best in that department" By stating this you are admitting C4D’s weaknesses. There is no need to ostracise people.

"Apply for a job at Maxon marketing then, beta testing is for people who like to spend their hours to make sure everything is ok and to push Maxon to make C4D a better product"

It's a shame they didn't thoroughly check the post render effects prior to general release!

ThirdEye
09-09-2005, 08:44 PM
I find these derogatory remarks really tedious, just because an individual finds aspects of another program stronger than C4D s/he is belittled and humiliated for having an alternative view. I’m sick and tired of reading "I’m hoping Cinema Version XXX will become the best in that department" By stating this you are admitting C4D’s weaknesses. There is no need to ostracise people.

"Apply for a job at Maxon marketing then, beta testing is for people who like to spend their hours to make sure everything is ok and to push Maxon to make C4D a better product"

It's a shame they didn't thoroughly check the post render effects prior to general release!



They checked, it's an old issue and it'll hopefully be addressed in the future releases of C4D. But you (all) gotta understand the day is made of 24 hours, and the Maxon coders have been working hard to give everyone a good product. If there are some things missing and you're not 100% satisfied it's not because they like cocktails and swimming pools and prefer them to hard work, it's because there wasn't enough time to do everything. That doesn't mean their work stops here, they'll keep working to try to keep customers happy.

StefanB
09-09-2005, 09:03 PM
@vid2k2

You could use imageshack to show your render

http://imageshack.us/

ThePriest
09-09-2005, 09:38 PM
No added noise - contrast fix
26minutes - scaled down from 1024 to 800

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 09:39 PM
Looks nice, Priest. Now add a kid bouncing through the room (animated) and render that without dancing GI artifacts. Stills is one thing, animation GI another.

ThePriest
09-09-2005, 09:58 PM
Looks nice, Priest. Now add a kid bouncing through the room (animated) and render that without dancing GI artifacts. Stills is one thing, animation GI another.

I'd just bake the light in the scene.
No bother.

ThePriest
09-09-2005, 10:13 PM
Looks nice, Priest. Now add a kid bouncing through the room (animated) and render that without dancing GI artifacts. Stills is one thing, animation GI another.

and BTW lightblitter, if Cinema doesn't meet your needs, nothing is stopping you from using another application.

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 10:18 PM
I've probably been with Cinema longer than you have, amigo. And I'm criticizing the renderer, not the app itself. AR does not = C4D for me. I consider them to be totally independent entities.

ThePriest
09-09-2005, 10:25 PM
I've probably been with Cinema longer than you have, amigo. And I'm criticizing the renderer, not the app itself. AR does not = C4D for me. I consider them to be totally independent entities.

If you've been with it longer than me, start producing something.

Continuumx
09-09-2005, 10:44 PM
I've probably been with Cinema longer than you have, amigo. And I'm criticizing the renderer, not the app itself. AR does not = C4D for me. I consider them to be totally independent entities.

I understand the need for comparisons but I feel that this is not a good analysis when maybe what you need is a more high-end package. I find it surprising that you have left out the emergence of the production bundle.

I am sure the production bundle with cineman is maybe what you need to satisfy your rendering requirements. Have you contacted Maxon directly about this in particular?

dann_stubbs
09-09-2005, 10:54 PM
I understand the need for comparisons but I feel that this is not a good analysis when maybe what you need is a more high-end package. I find it surprising that you have left out the emergence of the production bundle.

I am sure the production bundle with cineman is maybe what you need to satisfy your rendering requirements. Have you contacted Maxon directly about this in particular?

actually that was in a different thread i believe he did as well as a couple other - and yes - for many the cineman connection part of the production bundle is very interesting but most do not have the desire to pay 9,000 euro (what is that like $12,000 US?) to get a connector to renderman.

dann

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 11:31 PM
Thanks to you all for your suggestions.

J3- never did the export function with preview before, thanks.

Here's some higher rez images of my test:
9.x= 24:29
9.5demo= 24:24

OT: Question: how do you delete previous images that you've uploaded
to clear the space used ?

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 12:13 AM
I am sure the production bundle with cineman is maybe what you need to satisfy your rendering requirements. Have you contacted Maxon directly about this in particular?

Why would I pay 10X what it costs to get RM4Maya just to get Cineman? Even the really highend (as in film-tested) PRman connectors by Animal Logic cost only $2000. I'm not gonna plonk down 9,000 Euro for a Renderman connector.

AdamT
09-10-2005, 12:18 AM
Why would I pay 10X what it costs to get RM4Maya just to get Cineman? Even the really highend (as in film-tested) PRman connectors by Animal Logic cost only $2000. I'm not gonna plonk down 9,000 Euro for a Renderman connector.
According to Paul Babb, in his interview with 3D Attack, the RMan plugin is going to be available separately. Dry your little tears.

dann_stubbs
09-10-2005, 01:39 AM
According to Paul Babb, in his interview with 3D Attack, the RMan plugin is going to be available separately. Dry your little tears.

i did see that too in the 3d attack issue and was very enthused to read it - but i've yet to see an official announcement on it and am still curious myself if that was a mis-quote type thing...

i think that cineman plugin could be a good thing for many users big and small, whether all c4d users agree or not - i think multiple renderers and the options available to use them are in a good interest for maxon and it's users.

now as for "dry your little tears" as a professional way to educate another - i'm not so sure... it does seem like anybody with a differing opinion from the crowd does get attacked or at least repeatedly replied to by the same bunch. i'm sort of torn as to that behavior... sure to present an opposing opinion is one thing but it does seem like a cheering goup at times, which is confusing too since those users at times complain plenty about their own gripes of c4d.

yes, everybody is allowed their opinion whether for or against but it does seem to rally the troups if a disenting word is said from some (but yeah there are times when the dead horse should be left alone too, i agree) - why can't people just stop rebutting? the same huge thread (i'm sure most know which recent one) on PF could have been avoided if people just were able to ignore it and not have to put in their two cents for everything - i'm not sure who was really the person who won in that situation.

as for Paul Babb's interview tidbit - i hope so, but until an official annoucnement is made it is as good as saying wait until AR3 for those who are interested.

all i know is i'm just anxious to get the shipping 9.5 update : )

dann

Simon Wicker
09-10-2005, 02:14 AM
yes, everybody is allowed their opinion whether for or against but it does seem to rally the troups if a disenting word is said from some

everyone can have an opinion but it has to be backed up by knowledge, experience and common sense. lightblitter is constantly making things up. i don't have a problem with people pointing out that his comments are inaccurate and misleading. do you really want people who are perhaps less in the know thinking that you can't use AR for production work (i do it every day) and that you have to do things like RENDER grain in your work instead of applying it in post? i mean, really!

cheers, simon w.

dann_stubbs
09-10-2005, 02:25 AM
everyone can have an opinion but it has to be backed up by knowledge, experience and common sense. lightblitter is constantly making things up. i don't have a problem with people pointing out that his comments are inaccurate and misleading. do you really want people who are perhaps less in the know thinking that you can't use AR for production work (i do it every day) and that you have to do things like RENDER grain in your work instead of applying it in post? i mean, really!


no i do agree at times, and that post had me kinda scratching my head... i saw your reply and felt it was not necessary to add my "two cents" (of course i've been known to not control myself at times too : ) or have a bad day, but some seem to have MANY bad days) i remember reading a very nice couple posts from you on grain last year or so - and i was trying to think of where that was to post a link. i seem to remember you showing separate R, G, and B grains? is that familiar?

educating and correcting are one thing it is just the sort of petty comments that really only start a flame war and diminish the whole educational content of the threads.

p.s. do you remember where you posted about the grain? was that on PF or cgtalk? (thanks)

dann

fluffouille
09-10-2005, 02:48 AM
i did see that too in the 3d attack issue and was very enthused to read it - but i've yet to see an official announcement on it and am still curious myself if that was a mis-quote type thing...
dann
Hello Dann, I was the one who did the interview with Paul Babb at Siggraph, and he stated this precisely (I recorded the interview).
Now, this can change of course, after all they are just words, not a contract.
The price of the production bundle comes from the service contract, with updates, and that's why it's so expensive, not because of Cineman.
It would make sense for them to sell it separately, since it could attract more people from the film industry (because a plugin connection can work in two directions, a C4D user can migrate to a new renderer, and a renderer user can migrate to C4D), and you saw in the article that it's part of their current strategy at Maxon, hence the production bundle in the first place, and the emphasis with matte painting tools.

So, let us hope 'till the official announcement (the plugin has to be ready first, of course).

dann_stubbs
09-10-2005, 03:08 AM
Hello Dann, I was the one who did the interview with Paul Babb at Siggraph, and he stated this precisely (I recorded the interview).
Now, this can change of course, after all they are just words, not a contract.
The price of the production bundle comes from the service contract, with updates, and that's why it's so expensive, not because of Cineman.
It would make sense for them to sell it separately, since it could attract more people from the film industry (because a plugin connection can work in two directions, a C4D user can migrate to a new renderer, and a renderer user can migrate to C4D), and you saw in the article that it's part of their current strategy at Maxon, hence the production bundle in the first place, and the emphasis with matte painting tools.

So, let us hope 'till the official announcement (the plugin has to be ready first, of course).

i did notice that you did the interview - and it wasn't a question of your mis-quote - i was wondering more as Paul Babb is the american side of Maxon, but not sure if they follow the German home office Maxon rules and if he was mistaken on the sell separate part... cause if Paul was so open to say that in an interview i am just curious as to why there is no offical german maxon side of it.

i'm patient (well sometimes) and it will be soon enough we have FR2, maxwell, and hopefully cineman to have in our toolset.

dann

AdamT
09-10-2005, 03:24 AM
now as for "dry your little tears" as a professional way to educate another - i'm not so sure... it does seem like anybody with a differing opinion from the crowd does get attacked or at least repeatedly replied to by the same bunch.
That was actually a *lot* milder than my original thought. :) It's frustrating to hear certain people complain endlessly about the render engine, and then when an update comes bringing substantial improvement the same individual(s) have nothing to offer but continued criticism. What rational person would expect a total core rewrite with a .5 release?

dann_stubbs
09-10-2005, 03:35 AM
That was actually a *lot* milder than my original thought. :) It's frustrating to hear certain people complain endlessly about the render engine, and then when an update comes bringing substantial improvement the same individual(s) have nothing to offer but continued criticism. What rational person would expect a total core rewrite with a .5 release?

i totally understand. it is impossible to please everybody as well.

but if a person complains in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it - did they really complain?

yeah - the whole tree fall thing analogy isn't perfect but if they complain and are not rebutted - it is over and it will fade. i think most times the rebuttals just drive more replies and frustration... i know you know what i mean : )

i'm really looking forward to seeing FR2 - in the meantime i've just set up my first X2 4400 here (testing) so maybe that is keeping me preoccupied and in a happy place i guess... will be looking at 15,000 CB soon.

dann

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 03:39 AM
i did see that too in the 3d attack issue and was very enthused to read it - but i've yet to see an official announcement on it and am still curious myself if that was a mis-quote type thing...

i think that cineman plugin could be a good thing for many users big and small, whether all c4d users agree or not - i think multiple renderers and the options available to use them are in a good interest for maxon and it's users.

now as for "dry your little tears" as a professional way to educate another - i'm not so sure... it does seem like anybody with a differing opinion from the crowd does get attacked or at least repeatedly replied to by the same bunch. i'm sort of torn as to that behavior... sure to present an opposing opinion is one thing but it does seem like a cheering goup at times, which is confusing too since those users at times complain plenty about their own gripes of c4d.

yes, everybody is allowed their opinion whether for or against but it does seem to rally the troups if a disenting word is said from some (but yeah there are times when the dead horse should be left alone too, i agree) - why can't people just stop rebutting? the same huge thread (i'm sure most know which recent one) on PF could have been avoided if people just were able to ignore it and not have to put in their two cents for everything - i'm not sure who was really the person who won in that situation.

as for Paul Babb's interview tidbit - i hope so, but until an official annoucnement is made it is as good as saying wait until AR3 for those who are interested.

all i know is i'm just anxious to get the shipping 9.5 update : )

dann

Dann, I respect your professional responses to this discussion but there comes a time when some persons make particular statements that seem to become self-repeating every 3 or 4 month cycle. I do not place your comments on this level because you make very good comparisons and analysis in your replies based on good knowledge and actual usage.

Maxon has made some great strides, and I think it is unfair to make judgements on the new render update when the official release has not been installed yet or nor received, or even used in a full capacity.

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 04:10 AM
My project partner and I lost 30K on a project two years ago because of trouble rendering it with AR, and another project that was supposed to follow up on it upon successful completion. I'd take your opinions more seriously if like us, you spent three months on a project with little sleep and really difficult to render stuff and actually came out the other end smiling, which we certainly didn't. Unfortunately I don't see anyone here tackling those kinds of projects. I don't see any in the Maxon demoreel either and the few music videos that get posted here every now and then are much simpler than what we were trying to do. We had 2.5 million poly scenes full of complex organics tp model, animate, shade, light and render in a limited amount of time with a high quality requirement set by the client.

Sure, I can do nice stills with AR as well when I can let frames render for 2 hours then photoshop them at a leisurely pace. You can't photoshop 12 minutes worth of animation @25 frames per second however. I worked my butt off in post with Combustion trying to give the renders the right look in post. It often it didn't work very well or took almost longer to do than the renders themselves.

So before anyone comes out with another 'some people just complain' gem, actually go and use AR on a large, difficult to render project. Spend 3 months using the renderer on that project every day, and you'll see the limitations, and the weaknesses, and you'll understand why some areas need improvement. I've had it with people treating AR as if its a great renderer for doing everything. It needs a lot of work in a lot of areas from what I've experienced using it.

dann_stubbs
09-10-2005, 04:30 AM
I'd take your opinions more seriously if like us, you spent three months on a project with little sleep and really difficult to render stuff and actually came out the other end smiling, which we certainly didn't. Unfortunately I don't see anyone here tackling those kinds of projects. I don't see any in the Maxon demoreel either and the few music videos that get posted here every now and then are much simpler than what we were trying to do.

maybe that is why i sort of understand your frustration - i see some big things rendering here on my farm (i'm proud to help in my small way) - film res A list movie trailers, film res short films, and many national broadcast things both normal and HD res... also very nice (big stuff the /3GB really helps) arch stuff... most all amazing stuff... i don't disclose any of it though and what i just said is about the most i've ever said about what i see here - but non-descript enough to not give anything away. many times i do help TD or troubleshoot renders which i do gladly to help projects if i can - i've asked a few of these users if they could let maxon know about their project - i think pretty much the ones i did ask said legal said no or other similar reasons. many i am sure are just too busy or no need to do that type of PR - many also like to keep their workflow private as a trade secret. probably lots in the forums here with us just not posting or staying in steath mode - many studios have policies about public posting and disclosure of that type of info.

so there is some very nice stuff being done - most of us just don't know about it and i'm sure we've all seen these things totally unaware they were made in C4D - maybe these users on their side of it are swearing and having issues with AR too, i don't always know - i just make sure it renders here as fast and effieciently as it can, so i don't see all angles. but the same is true of mental ray and other "high end" render engines - i know you are aware they all have their limitation and it is kinda hard to point the finger at one renderer and blame it when they all suffer some sort of weakness. you may have suffered the same result from mental ray etc... it is hard to speculate that type of thing at times. as much as people pan the 3dmax scanline render engine, BLUR used it on their disney file Mickeys Twice Upon a Christmas and i thought it was a darn good job - i would not have guessed it was the max scanline render engine (not ever used it myself but from seeing posts and public stuff etc)

i hope FR2 is a good answer for you and i, and others that are looking at it - and maybe that will provide a nice solution for you in just a few weeks time from now. i look forward to seeing renders from other users with it for sure.

dann

Per-Anders
09-10-2005, 05:37 AM
So before anyone comes out with another 'some people just complain' gem, actually go and use AR on a large, difficult to render project. Spend 3 months using the renderer on that project every day, and you'll see the limitations, and the weaknesses, and you'll understand why some areas need improvement. I've had it with people treating AR as if its a great renderer for doing everything. It needs a lot of work in a lot of areas from what I've experienced using it.

have done, quite a few times, and come out smiling (and i know quite a few other poeple that do frequent these forums that have done too). you're painting some picture as if ar isn't production ready or production proven at all, which is simply not the case. don't assume others have not used cinema for complex and difficult projects, nor that if they did they would have the same experience you did (nor that they might not have possibly solutions and workarounds to teh shortcomings you experienced).

i would quite like to see something from this project of yours, to judge the complexity of this project that you were talking about to compare it with "the few music videos" that get posted.

i don't think anyone here is claiming that ar is perfect. they are however allowed to be happy with the updates they are given if they choose to be. why is it such an issue to you? i mean to be honest, start showing actual examples of situations where ar is failing you. and then see if poeple can give you solutions, and remember that nothing is a cheat (and that should go for the poeple giving you solutions to the problems... brute forcing it is rarely an acceptable answer on a tight schedule and tight budget).

also remember that there will always be failings to any engine, areas where others just trash it (how much use would maxwell of been to you on your 3 month project, yet you're always touting that). sometimes you just have to use more than one tool to finish the job (shock horror), sometimes even if others are faster you can still get the job done (even more shock horror).

i say in general to the c4d forum less of the "compare x engine render time to y engine rendertime" threads and posts and instead start more comparing images and tips on getting great comparable images. you like an image done elsewhere and want to know how to achieve it in cinema? there's more to be had from that than in any of these threads (provided you can keep on topic that is and not start more diatribes).

ThePriest
09-10-2005, 05:58 AM
In certain cases, we've done all our work in Cinema and then spent sometime switching over to max, rendering with VRay through a RenderFarm like Dann's.
We knew the limitations before we got knee deep in splotches.
Other times, AR is a perfect solution for ArchViz animation. If you don't need realism.

$30k is a big loss. I feel your pain.
I know a studio in the City where they work with quarter of a million dollar projects and they swear by AR for the speed, quality and if there's errors, the quick turn around for re-runs.

AdamT
09-10-2005, 06:06 AM
Well said mdme_sadie. Posting specific problems/shortcomings, along with examples, might actually aid in the development of AR. Simply saying there isn't enough "control", or "this sucks", or "I'm seriously thinking about switching to [flavor of the day]" doesn't help.

You also have to be aware that Maxon has a small development team and they can't do everything at once. I wanted to see GI improvements in 9.5 as much as anyone, but it just wasn't possible in the allotted time.

We all understand that more can be done, but how about at least once giving a little shout out for the improvements that have been made? Seems like it wasn't long ago everyone was upset that there were no 3d party render engines available. Now there are several. fR-2 is only possible because of the effort Maxon put into the SDK, not to mention direct support.

If you're a negative person with a shi*ty attitude 100% of the time don't be surprised when people perceive you as a negative person with a shi*ty attitude.

williamsburroughs
09-10-2005, 06:27 AM
God forbid Cinema4D could ever connect with Renderman...

:love:

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:44 AM
My project partner and I lost 30K on a project two years ago because of trouble rendering it with AR, and another project that was supposed to follow up on it upon successful completion.

That's unfortunate but I wonder if only AR was to blame. You need to learn and understand the strenghts and weaknesses of your tool so that you don't end up in such a situation to start with. If you knew what you and AR were capable of you could have told your client from the start that what they want is unachievable within the time.

amoeba
09-10-2005, 03:02 PM
Got to agree with Janine on this one, if you can’t deliver what the customer wants, don’t take on the job. I’ve turned down work in the past because I know I couldn’t give the client what they wanted. You can’t take on work and start learning as you go. We were let down by a freelancer about six months ago, I really appreciate working till 3AM for 6 days to mop up someone else’s failings.

As for external render engines, tis a shame RenderDrive doesn’t support more programs. Having said that they do support Renderman data…Hmm

dann_stubbs
09-10-2005, 03:19 PM
As for external render engines, tis a shame RenderDrive doesn’t support more programs. Having said that they do support Renderman data…Hmm


the problem with renderdrive is it needs it's own shaders to get the speed benefit (same with maya etc) - it can't render your scene from c4d with as-is. so then you are limited to only raytracing as well as their shaders. it may be fast in the end render but the learning curve is the same as using another render engine so many benefits are lessened.

9.5 adds some very nice speed improvements with the parts that were updated - this will benefit most all types of renders. so couple that with a recent cpu (X2 comes to mind) or a few extra cpu's or a renderfarm and you have much bigger gains overall then a raytracing only card IMHO.

dann

Ernest Burden
09-10-2005, 05:21 PM
Unfortunately I don't see anyone here tackling those kinds of projects.
You can't photoshop 12 minutes worth of animation @25 frames per second however.
So before anyone comes out with another 'some people just complain' gem, actually go and use AR on a large, difficult to render project.

I have been using AR2 for some complex animations (to be honest they aren't all that complex) and so far my opinion is that AR2, in both of the two times I've used it for 2 - 4 minute arch-vis animation, has failed me.

Some people do just complain, I guess I'm becoming one of them.

I do post-process all my frames in Photoshop, by the way. It can be done so long as you're batch-processing them.


What rational person would expect a total core rewrite with a .5 release?

Point taken, but I think the problem is that after 1 year or so we needed a .9 release, not a .4

That's unfortunate but I wonder if only AR was to blame. You need to learn and understand the strenghts and weaknesses of your tool so that you don't end up in such a situation to start with. If you knew what you and AR were capable of you could have told your client from the start that what they want is unachievable within the time.

Can't argue with that. But my problems with it stem from the AR time-accumulation bug. It's a bug. It's true that I jumped into short-turnaround work with AR2 without fully testing it, but if that bug were not there I would have come out of it in good shape. But because of it we come right back to my biggest problem with AR2 and now AR2.5--no viable GI animation option. That's a problem for a GI animation package.

MJV
09-10-2005, 05:36 PM
Since when is Cinema a GI animation package? If you want to do animation with Cinema then you pretty much are stuck with having to use traditional lighting techniques. GI is simply way too slow for animation, and object animation GI has never worked afaik. You always have alternatives though and in production you have to do what will get the job done. Use traditional lighting, bake what you can, etc.

I have to admit that studying the kitchen scene that Janine posted has refreshed my memory of just how difficult the GI render engine can be, particularly in scenes where the GI is used for anything more than providing mild bounce fill. Where GI will be a primary source of illumination, I find that nothing short of having a very dense dot pattern will suffice to avoid serious artifacting and get realistic shadows, which means long render times. There is just no way around it.

JamesMK
09-10-2005, 05:45 PM
But because of it we come right back to my biggest problem with AR2 and now AR2.5--no viable GI animation option. That's a problem for a GI animation package.
With all due respect for your work (which I find cool and stylish in all its quirkyness), and I really understand it's a pain getting this kind of problem... but seriously, I cannot grasp why anyone would even consider doing animation with GI in the first place. No matter what the render engine might be (and that includes FR stage 2, which has excellent performance with animated GI, I still would never consider using it in animation). Every render engine is still restricted by the fact that things need to be calculated, and the more advanced algorithms involved, the more problems you're asking for.

This is not limited to AR, but to any software really.

Even when looking at big studios with enormous renderfarms and all the hard-core equipment one could ever dream of, you rarely see them use full-blown frame-by-frame GI calculations.




.

STRAT
09-10-2005, 06:07 PM
but seriously, I cannot grasp why anyone would even consider doing animation with GI in the first place. No matter what the render engine might be (and that includes FR stage 2, which has excellent performance with animated GI, I still would never consider using it in animation).


i do not understand this statement. i certainly want to consider using it. and do. and before the AR render slowdown pi**ed me off so much i got some beautiful GI animations rendered.

the reason i dont use the AR for GI animation anymore is because of this drastic render time slow down. for this reason i do understand your statement, but not all renderers do slow down.

and i'm on the understanding that the new fr2 does not suffer from this time accumulation slow down. if this is the case then why not use it for GI animation? i certainly will. infact i cant wait. why wouldn't you?

with experience in optomisation and other speed saving tips, a rendered scene with GI can easily be comparable in render time to a raytraced conventionally lit similar scene. and without saying, the real GI will always be more realistic than the fake. (i know you know this, and am not trying to talk down to you buddy i assure you :) i'm just on a roll ;) )

as i say, if it wasn't for the speed accumulation i'd be over the moon with c4d's GI animation times.

i might average a render time of 3-4 mins for an architectural gi frame. that works out at 3-4 days maybe for that 1500 frame animation. thats acceptable in my books for the quality i'll get. but ONLY if i can garantee that time, which, as the AR stands, i certainly cant get anywhere even close to it. but hopefully FR2 will.

fluffouille
09-10-2005, 06:28 PM
Based on my experience, FR2 is a lot more efficient and usable in that regard.

Ernest Burden
09-10-2005, 06:29 PM
Since when is Cinema a GI animation package?

Wow. That is a powerful statement.
Does anyone here think Maxon would conceed that Cinema4D is not a GI animation package?


I cannot grasp why anyone would even consider doing animation with GI in the first place.

I was doing GI animation for many years before moving to Cinema. I did some pretty complex work, one interior in particular. Rendered over three minutes @30fps at DVD res on two PC over a long weekend, full GI. Sample frames begin about 1/2 down the page:
ship int anim (http://www.acmedigital.com/TIH-DCL/TIH-DCL.html)

So it didn't occur to me that doing GI-based animation was a 'why would you ever want to do that' thing until I tried it with the more advanced product, C4D.

Even when looking at big studios with enormous renderfarms and all the hard-core equipment one could ever dream of, you rarely see them use full-blown frame-by-frame GI calculations.

Very true. Frame render times are a lot more important when you have 50K - 100K frames at 4K resolution than they are for an architectural piece of 3 minutes at 720 lines. Also, studios are very used to lighting rigs, so it translates well to digital lighting. We in the arch-vis field are used to using lights differently, so rely more upon GI. Besides, the early days of CG arch-vis were marked by a lot of really bad CG work, so GI gives us a way to show that CG renderings can actually look good.

STRAT
09-10-2005, 07:11 PM
Since when is Cinema a GI animation package? If you want to do animation with Cinema then you pretty much are stuck with having to use traditional lighting techniques. GI is simply way too slow for animation, and object animation GI has never worked afaik.

like EBIII, i too find this statement strange. if this statement is based on the progressive render slow down then i agree with you, but then, like Ernest, i'm shocked that we seem to be the only 2 peeps i know about that experience this phenonoma.

btw, object gi animation works fine for me.

i suppose we all use the AR differently.

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 07:41 PM
Statements like 'why would anyone want to use GI for animation?' don't really surprise me anymore. A lot of people I know routinely use GI for animation. Its embarassing to even suggest otherwise.

Janine
09-10-2005, 08:02 PM
Statements like 'why would anyone want to use GI for animation?' don't really surprise me anymore. A lot of people I know routinely use GI for animation. Its embarassing to even suggest otherwise.

I would really be curious to see those animations. Are they flicker and grain free? And what's the render time per frame? And it's not baked or faked?

Gi animation either takes too long, or it's grainy or it flickers. I'm not saying that other renderers aren't better than AR for animation, but I don't think I've seen an animated interior with GI that wasn't either grainy or had other issues. Please show examples, prove me wrong.

andronikos916
09-10-2005, 08:06 PM
...c4d is a very good package overall. In fact none of the high end 3d applications out there has a decent rendering package by default. All using 3d party rendering solutions MR, FR, Turtle, Vray etc...

Imagine if you wanted to do Arch Viz with Scanline or Maya's default renderer! :eek:

...the problem here is that we only have AR2.5 wich is great if you compare it with scanline and maya's default renderer for example but can not compared with a external render engine by no means...

AR is a multi purpose renderer! ...good but not designed having Arch. Viz in mind that we are nowadys heavily depend on GI.

Also if indeed Maxon is a small team of developers - that I do not know - how the hell are we expecting to have: best nurbs modelling, super stable UI, super fast renderer, GI algorithms better than 3rb party renderers etc etc...

In my opinion it is a race that Maxon will loose. They have to bridge c4d with other render engines. THis way they can leave the AR2.5 alone and concentrate in other issues... and updated AR every 3years or so...

Imagine for a sec all the rendering companies! ...they spent 50hrs+ per week trying to optimize and make better their rendering package... Maxon has to think 100+ more for c4d!

Last year (when we all start screaming about it) we saw the first 3d party renderer (wich is maxwell). Now FR st2 is comming too.. Chaosgroup and Vray might be available, might not (you never ever know), this thing is like a myth!

So to summarize my opinon about AR2.5 wich what this thread is about is:

Good thank you Maxon, beta testers etc. but no, it is not a new render engine that will make people stay and keep using c4d and not migrate to the ugly and unstable Max UI!

...I personally beleive in Maxwelll. Not FR st2... It is available for MAX for years and 90% of max users using Vray, so this defently telling me something...

cy,
Andronikos

c4dportal
09-10-2005, 08:09 PM
I would really be curious to see those animations. Are they flicker and grain free? And what's the render time per frame? And it's not baked or faked?

Gi animation either takes too long, or it's grainy or it flickers. I'm not saying that other renderers aren't better than AR for animation, but I don't think I've seen an animated interior with GI that wasn't either grainy or had other issues. Please show examples, prove me wrong.

http://www.archiform3d.com/3d-renderings-radiosity.htm

Haven't read the page, but it might be what you are looking for...or it might be something else entirely. Anyways, have a look.

JamesMK
09-10-2005, 08:31 PM
Statements like 'why would anyone want to use GI for animation?' don't really surprise me anymore.
I guess it shouldn't, considering how there's constant complaints about all the problems involved :shrug:

And if there have been successful attempts made earlier, in other packages, why not go back and render the animations with those renderers instead?

And if it doesn't work with AR, why continue those apparently futile attempts instead of finding another way to light the scene, or render with another package instead?

And of course I should add a big IMHO here (which I should have done previously as well)... I guess I'm just curious really.



.

Janine
09-10-2005, 08:35 PM
http://www.archiform3d.com/3d-renderings-radiosity.htm

Haven't read the page, but it might be what you are looking for...or it might be something else entirely. Anyways, have a look.

Heh... right at the end of the animation, the last few frames... you can see a big splotch popping in the bottom right corner. :D

I like this quote on there: "having the best artists backed by the best hardware doing the best work."

Now looking at the movie again... There are quite a few popping splotches. On the furniture, behind the wardrobe... And I guess the compression and small size covers up some of it as well. So no, not even that example is perfect. :p

andronikos916
09-10-2005, 08:36 PM
these are not the best GI animations around and they have visible artifacts even at that small res...

Anyway I do beleive and I have seen GI animation that are totally artifact and noise free.

some examples here:

www.pixelmustdie.com (http://www.pixelmustdie.com)
http://www.digitalartweb.com
and more...

cy,
Andronikos

wuensch
09-10-2005, 08:40 PM
So what?
External renderers can be offered,so I really dont understand what the fuzz is about: the software-groundwork for external renderers is laid out, and more external options are only matter of time or the will of the external renderer software company.
Those interested in a really advanced renderer can order FR2 if they like and should start bugging MentalImages for a c4d connection.

I really cannot see (for me, who has not invested in an external renderer and frankly up to now has not had the need) why improving AR can be anything but good for all the users, especially the rest that has been happy with it up to now and is even happier with the update of 9.5.

The renderer has always been easy to use and thus made it possible for relatively inexperienced new users to get good results in a quick time.
One of c4ds real strength, that is hardly ever mentioned.
Only smart to not become idle here and not to loose an important selling point.

Olli




...c4d is a very good package overall. In fact none of the high end 3d applications out there has a decent rendering package by default. All using 3d party rendering solutions MR, FR, Turtle, Vray etc...

Imagine if you wanted to do Arch Viz with Scanline or Maya's default renderer! :eek:

...the problem here is that we only have AR2.5 wich is great if you compare it with scanline and maya's default renderer for example but can not compared with a external render engine by no means...

AR is a multi purpose renderer! ...good but not designed having Arch. Viz in mind that we are nowadys heavily depend on GI.

Also if indeed Maxon is a small team of developers - that I do not know - how the hell are we expecting to have: best nurbs modelling, super stable UI, super fast renderer, GI algorithms better than 3rb party renderers etc etc...

In my opinion it is a race that Maxon will loose. They have to bridge c4d with other render engines. THis way they can leave the AR2.5 alone and concentrate in other issues... and updated AR every 3years or so...

Imagine for a sec all the rendering companies! ...they spent 50hrs+ per week trying to optimize and make better their rendering package... Maxon has to think 100+ more for c4d!

Last year (when we all start screaming about it) we saw the first 3d party renderer (wich is maxwell). Now FR st2 is comming too.. Chaosgroup and Vray might be available, might not (you never ever know), this thing is like a myth!

So to summarize my opinon about AR2.5 wich what this thread is about is:

Good thank you Maxon, beta testers etc. but no, it is not a new render engine that will make people stay and keep using c4d and not migrate to the ugly and unstable Max UI!

...I personally beleive in Maxwelll. Not FR st2... It is available for MAX for years and 90% of max users using Vray, so this defently telling me something...

cy,
Andronikos

Ernest Burden
09-10-2005, 08:40 PM
I would really be curious to see those animations. Are they flicker and grain free? And what's the render time per frame? And it's not baked or faked?...prove me wrong.

The grain in the samples I showed in my post was added with Photoshop. GI, hundreds of difuse bounces, dozens of lights, etc. Here is a raw frame:

http://www.oreally.com/temp/RT-A05-0225.jpg

This frame (from 2003) took 4 minutes to render. Some shots rendered more like 1.5 mins/per, while ones that had some frosted glass visible really slowed down to 6 or even 8 min/per.

No grain, no flicker, fast. Baked? Well....sort of. The lighting is encoded into poly vertexes. (Is that even a word?) So no objects move, only the camera. That's why I had to go to a program like Cinema.

But the days of rendering a complex interior at 3000 lines in 12 minutes is gone, and without that C4D GI anim. bug fixes so are the days of great GI animation for me.

Sadness

STRAT
09-10-2005, 08:42 PM
there are load of examples out there, but ur right, you almost cant fail to spot gi artifacts and the odd flicker here and there. nothing's perfect of course, but imo, specially in my line of architecture, the odd splotch or flicker is more than acceptable if the general look of the render is good. and, imo again, even top notch fake gi cant beat real gi in most cases for realism. and even faking gi has it's own foibles.

c4dportal
09-10-2005, 08:44 PM
Heh... right at the end of the animation, the last few frames... you can see a big splotch popping in the bottom right corner. :D

I like this quote on there: "having the best artists backed by the best hardware doing the best work."

Now looking at the movie again... There are quite a few popping splotches. On the furniture, behind the wardrobe... And I guess the compression and small size covers up some of it as well. So no, not even that example is perfect. :p


I think those are compression artifacts :wise: :p. It's a decent animation though. Going to see if the creator wants to post a high res version of the animation.

Janine
09-10-2005, 09:09 PM
I can still see grain and flicker here and there. :p

Where did this discussion start btw? ;) I think I've lost track of what it was actually about. AR not being as good as it could be for gi animation? Well theres not much that can be done about that now apart from actually switching to a renderer that's better at it. I won't.

But anyway, yes, those animations are probably perfectly acceptable for those types of projects. I still wouldn't use gi for paying projects. Too limiting in many aspects. imo

Ernest Burden
09-10-2005, 09:31 PM
I don't think I've seen an animated interior with GI that wasn't either grainy or had other issues. Please show examples, prove me wrong.

I think this will fail on the 'other issues' test. There are some 'low setting' artifacts that are visible. This is a raw version of an animation (http://www.oreally.com/temp/mca-raw.mpg) I did last year with Lightscape, meaning this is exactly what the render engine spit out. The average frame time was about 1 minute per on interior. Never mind a few edit problems in this, it wasn't the final mix. Yes, that's intentional audio. I do lots of post, so the final looked like this:

http://www.acmedigital.com/MCA/int-05-0210.jpg


In the animation you will notice some frozen fish. That's why I needed to move to Cinema. I accept that I will take a speed hit in order to get other things I need, like live fish. So if AR can get that GI animation bug fixed, we will all be in better shape. I got in trouble when I RTFM and believed that 'camera animation is there to speed up your work'. So I got burned.

Sorry for the Lightscape diversion, I had a challenge thrown down.

AdamT
09-10-2005, 09:42 PM
I don't doubt you Ernest, but it's really impossible to judge the quality of the GI results with all the post work. Do you have any raw frames?

MJV
09-10-2005, 09:43 PM
Bunny by Blue Sky Studios (http://bunny.blueskystudios.com/press_BS1.html) was the first major short produced that used radiosity, a proprietary coding from Blue Sky, and is of course well know for having won an Academy Award for best animation short in 1999 (http://bunny.blueskystudios.com/press_BS4.html). It is available on the Ice Age (http://www.keyframeonline.com/kf.php?op=profilebuy&id=124#dvd) DVD.

For examples of GI arch vis renderings from Cinema you all might want to check out this page from Achiform 3D (http://www.archiform3d.com/3d-renderings-radiosity.htm), one of Australia's leading arch vis studios. Steve Bell has been working for many years to build a viable radiosity workflow with Cinema.

MJV
09-10-2005, 09:47 PM
And here is my most ambitious radiosity animation to date: http://www.mvpny.com/TreeScene.html

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 09:48 PM
I have been using AR2 for some complex animations (to be honest they aren't all that complex) and so far my opinion is that AR2, in both of the two times I've used it for 2 - 4 minute arch-vis animation, has failed me.

Some people do just complain, I guess I'm becoming one of them.

Ernest, you are one of the few people who give really good scope of what it is you want to achieve and how your current set may or may not be getting you to those goals. And there is always some good discussions as how to go about looking for a solution to any of those issues.

I doubt very few people here if any think that you fall into that cateogory(sp?). I appreciate your discussions.

Ernest Burden
09-10-2005, 09:53 PM
I don't doubt you Ernest, but it's really impossible to judge the quality of the GI results with all the post work. Do you have any raw frames?

Several minutes of them:

This is a raw version of an animation (http://www.oreally.com/temp/mca-raw.mpg) I did

flingster
09-10-2005, 09:56 PM
crikey this thread grew.. i'd just like to please ask people politely to stick to the thread topic on this it seems to be causing a lot of bad feeling between various parties on this forum and this is not a good thing if we want to have this forum and continue to function as a forum ...we need to all step back and think for awhile about either sides point of view. i don't want to spend all my "short" amount of time at the moment having to trawl through endless posts abusing each others work or knowledge on subjects. I'd like to call for a little calm before you post... think about it, there is someone on the otherside of a computer screen reading these posts you submit with real feelings. When you knock someones work you, knock there confidence and all the time and effort they put into their work...think about how your comments might feel on the other side of the fence. Please take some time to consider what you post and how you post, no one objects to sharing of knowledge and its easy to read these comments. We are not talking about crits here we are talking about belittling someone, that is going on in parts of this thread...and this is not directed to any one post or person its directed to all who take part on here. So please respect each others opinions, provide crits if asked for, be polite, please try and add to the discussion rather than stir it up, and please please stick to the topic...increase the peace...share the lovin...and for god sake keep smiling ya bunch o grumpy gits...lol..

1) I'd like some of the pro camp to point out what they would like to see the future for AR releases inclusion?
2) and what part of the update to AR they so impressed/in love with.
3) and finally what they think is the 2 best things about AR overall.

again this shouldn't be to far off the topic of the original post and would help canvas peoples opinions.

for me...my answers
1) i'm a pro camp..love AR...think it needs improvements though despite doubts...i'd like to see instance improvements, dispersion, memory management type feature like bucket rendering so i can better manage my high poly scenes but also render out large scale images...
2) i don't have 9.5, and wasn't sure i'd get it, but having heard about spd speed improvements which are so needed as its unusable in 9..imho. then transparency/blurr reflections sounded speeded up which is a biggie annoyance..certainly blurred stuff...jeez machine render speed killers...so these speeded up are goodies imo...undecided about upgrading atm
3) 16000x16000 renders...realistically also...speed, stability...the days these change...i'm gone cry like a girl..no offense to all the girls out there of course.

anyways finally seems we're getting to some settings and comparisions and speed info...keep em coming...keep behaving yourselves...
don't forget we make this forum...if you want it an unfriendly place then act unfriendly and confrontational....if you want it useful and information sharing with a pleasant demure...then make it that way...you decide.
cheers for listening to yet another flingster moment...:thumbsup:

AdamT
09-10-2005, 10:03 PM
Sorry, I missed that somehow. It's impressive. There's flickering, moire, and AA issues, but I think 90% is down to compression.

Ernest Burden
09-10-2005, 10:13 PM
Sorry, I missed that somehow. It's impressive. There's flickering, moire, and AA issues, but I think 90% is down to compression.

Where?

I did do without AA for that work, as well as recent work. The mpeg version is 1/10th the QT Sorenson version, so issues come into play from that. But flickering? Can you ID a part where you see it?

Oh, never mind, this is about AR, not LS.

Anyone who is saying AR2 is the bee's knees please run a hundred frames of GI and lets look at those results, that's where I'm having problems.

AdamT
09-10-2005, 10:15 PM
There's flickering throughout the entire animation, but as I said I think it's compression artifacts.

MJV
09-10-2005, 11:13 PM
There's flickering throughout the entire animation, but as I said I think it's compression artifacts.

It doesn't look like compression artifacting to me.

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:44 PM
Bunny by Blue Sky Studios (http://bunny.blueskystudios.com/press_BS1.html) was the first major short produced that used radiosity

Ha! That's funny, I was thinking of that one earlier. :D I still remember the amount of flickering grain it had in the dark areas...

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:50 PM
Anyone who is saying AR2 is the bee's knees please run a hundred frames of GI and lets look at those results, that's where I'm having problems.

But see, that's exactly the problem. Nobody here says that AR is the bee's knees for gi anims, quite the opposite. It's the bee's knees for many many things, just not that. ;) People are just saying that yes, this is an area which needs improving, but that doesn't mean AR is complete rubbish and I don't like seeing such a good render engine get such a bashing! For most everyday projects quick quality results and ease of use and stability are the key. For me gi animation falls under the "experimental" category at the moment.

Maxwell is "experimental" in that area too. ;)

Simon Wicker
09-11-2005, 12:30 AM
like EBIII, i too find this statement strange. if this statement is based on the progressive render slow down then i agree with you, but then, like Ernest, i'm shocked that we seem to be the only 2 peeps i know about that experience this phenonoma.

hi strat,

i think the problem comes from the fact that no-one ever anticipated anyone producing several thousands of frames of a single flythrough in one continuous shot. working in feature films the longest shot i ever worked on was around 300 frames long. it would never have occurred to me to try and do this as a single GI render, from the very beginning i knew that i would be breaking the shot down into several sections and then creating camera maps so that i could re-project single frames and use 'baked' GI to speed up the rendering. because of the way i split out what i am doing (to bring more into the compositing aspect rather than using straight rendering) this slow down of the rendering has never posed a problem to what in was doing - in fact until it was brought up here i doubt that anyone ever knew of the slow-down.

cheers, simon w.

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 01:01 AM
Maxwell is "experimental" in that area too. ;)

I tripped over my powercord 5 and 1/2 hours into rendering, so this will be even
more experimental. I give you "Polterkitchen". Stand well back from the screen
and don't forget to squint to see what the image was originally meant to look like. :thumbsup:

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/9206/polterkitchen3pq.jpg

Ernest Burden
09-11-2005, 01:20 AM
It doesn't look like compression artifacting to me.

If you're talking about my example, its mpeg artifacts. The lighting is hardwired into the polygon mesh, it simply does not vary from one frame to the next. Artifacts can be there, but Lightscape was 100% flicker free. I introduced noise in my final, but there was none from the renderer either. I recently saw one of the Lightscape founders and asked him where the genius guy who wrote the unequaled-to-this-day LS raytracer ended up--answer: Pixar.


But see, that's exactly the problem. Nobody here says that AR is the bee's knees for gi anims, quite the opposite.

Jokes on me, then. That's why I bought it. Funny, but the Maxon site never says anything like 'don't bother using this software to do GI animation, its just not good". Yet the lot of you here say that.

For me gi animation falls under the "experimental" category at the moment.

For me it in the 'how I feed my children' catagory.

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 01:37 AM
Rumor has it that Maxwell will be able to do Lightscape like baking as well at some point. On the other hand, the baking tools in R9.5 should be able to do the same with AR's radiosity. Can't vouch for it however since the demo doesn't allow baking.

For the benefit of those without 48" screens, Polterkitchen scaled down:

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6679/poltersmall7ql.jpg

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 02:52 AM
hi strat,

i think the problem comes from the fact that no-one ever anticipated anyone producing several thousands of frames of a single flythrough in one continuous shot. working in feature films the longest shot i ever worked on was around 300 frames long. it would never have occurred to me to try and do this as a single GI render, from the very beginning i knew that i would be breaking the shot down into several sections and then creating camera maps so that i could re-project single frames and use 'baked' GI to speed up the rendering. because of the way i split out what i am doing (to bring more into the compositing aspect rather than using straight rendering) this slow down of the rendering has never posed a problem to what in was doing - in fact until it was brought up here i doubt that anyone ever knew of the slow-down.

cheers, simon w.

I am glad you brought this point up Simon. I *knew* this but as habit, still think that animation should be one long shot when in reality it is broken down just as an image is broken down in comps during the post processing period.

This is an area that needs attention as to how it is done in the trade, what entails a animation shot, how is it broken down, how it is story board during pre-vis and such. A lot of good information in this regard is not present in how-to-books as far as my memory goes.

AdamT
09-11-2005, 04:54 AM
EDIT: oops, wrong thread. :)

Simon Wicker
09-11-2005, 04:58 AM
For me it in the 'how I feed my children' catagory.

hi ernest,

i think that you need to start thinking out of the box rather than trying the straight forwards brute force approach to rendering with GI. for exteriors there would be no problem with using ambient occlusion mixed with an environment pass to create realistic lighting and shading (if you decided to do a straight single render). alternatively you could use camera mapping with full GI or texture baking to create the radiosity effect and then construct things in the comp.

these kinds of tricks are used all the time in the film effects world as a way of avoiding only having the time to do a single render before the shot needs to be finalled (because at the end when the director says 'that's great, but lets just change X...' you would really be up the creek).

cheers, simon w.

LucentDreams
09-11-2005, 08:05 AM
man I honeslty though that the Rendering b!tching would have stopped or at least greatly slowed down after the release of 9.5, do you guys seriously have nothing better to do. I figured after 9.5 all the bithcing would liekly be CA or particles or texture tree maybe, but rendering is still the bitching subject.

If you wanna use maxwell then use the damn maxwell plugin, if you wanna use final render when it comes out, then do so, if you want Vray, tell them you want it, can we stop posting daily 20 page threads simply on rendering this vs that? Its pretty sad when a forum leader hates going to the forum because people fight over a single issue every day.

I was hoping this thread would be solety about creative tweaking and uses of cinema to get he best out of AR, but man its really heading south fast.

STRAT
09-11-2005, 08:29 AM
Hi Kai

chill out there friend, of course peeps have things better to do, but this is the one place where c4d users can chat and talk about their software to other peeps that actually give a damn and understand. this is a structured thread with adult level conversation imo, and not just an AR bashing thread.

but he's right, lets maybe get back ON T eh?

:)


hi strat,

i think the problem comes from the fact that no-one ever anticipated anyone producing several thousands of frames of a single flythrough in one continuous shot. working in feature films the longest shot i ever worked on was around 300 frames long. it would never have occurred to me to try and do this as a single GI render, from the very beginning i knew that i would be breaking the shot down into several sections and then creating camera maps so that i could re-project single frames and use 'baked' GI to speed up the rendering. because of the way i split out what i am doing (to bring more into the compositing aspect rather than using straight rendering) this slow down of the rendering has never posed a problem to what in was doing - in fact until it was brought up here i doubt that anyone ever knew of the slow-down.

cheers, simon w.


hi m8

first off i dont do long single non-cut animated sequences in general. i just render that way. (it's still a very popular way to disply anims in archi too, and nothing wring with that) and besides, this slow down phenonoma occures after the first 50-100 frames or so rendered, not after thousands. and it aint just as easy as just suggesting to use baking and camera mapping. an experienced archi user would have considered these factors anyway.





But see, that's exactly the problem. Nobody here says that AR is the bee's knees for gi anims, quite the opposite. It's the bee's knees for many many things, just not that. ;) People are just saying that yes, this is an area which needs improving, but that doesn't mean AR is complete rubbish and I don't like seeing such a good render engine get such a bashing! For most everyday projects quick quality results and ease of use and stability are the key. For me gi animation falls under the "experimental" category at the moment.



Hi Janine

(regaurding underlined statement) - yeah, but for different reasons. if it wasn't for the render slow down then c4d GI anim really is acceptable for me and my clients. infact i'm pretty chuffed with the quality as it stands. ok, it could always speed up, but we'll always say that.

but as you also point out, i guess it's down to personal choice and your own work load.

wuensch
09-11-2005, 08:34 AM
I agree with you, Kai.
This forum used to be the absolutely best one because people would share tips/tricks and their WIPs.
Over the last months it has become a much tech-talk and bitching forum.

This may be totally OK for some, but it is scaring away artists that want to talk & share work.

I hardly see anything apart from stupid interior scenes or tech-demo pictures these days here.

Other work is posted, but flooded away by the sheer mass of GI tests and tech-threads.

I think maybe it would be a good idea to split the c4d-forum here at cgtalk into a
"Render comparion and rendertechtalk" sub-forum and keep this out of the main forum, if possible.

Edit-Addition:
I agree that if the bug with the rendertime-increase& the GI-cameranimation still exists in R9.5 it deserves mentioning & criticism-- does it still exist, btw?(I dont have my R 9.5 yet, waiting)--since the demo cannot tell only someone who has the final in hand can tell--
what i am a bit unhappy with is that the techcomparison-side is overtaking the forum to a large extent.

Olli

ThirdEye
09-11-2005, 11:00 AM
I think maybe it would be a good idea to split the c4d-forum here at cgtalk into a "Render comparion and rendertechtalk" sub-forum and keep this out of the main forum, if possible.

There's a lighting subforum i created exactly for such a purpose, but it seems people prefer using the main one :rolleyes:

Janine
09-11-2005, 12:01 PM
There's a lighting subforum i created exactly for such a purpose, but it seems people prefer using the main one :rolleyes:

Well, I would say, once the ar2.5 comparison thread has fizzled out you can put it in there. :) Also means that people can easily find it in there.

Ernest Burden
09-11-2005, 12:12 PM
I am glad you brought this point up Simon. I *knew* this but as habit, still think that animation should be one long shot when in reality it is broken down just as an image is broken down in comps during the post processing period.

I've always hated the fact that most architectural animation has been done as one long shot. So I've never done one that way. I may use a single shot of up to 12 seconds, but usually much shorter, around Simon's 300 frames. Just because you're imaging architecture doesn't mean it has to be laughably bad.

dann_stubbs
09-11-2005, 12:44 PM
There's a lighting subforum i created exactly for such a purpose, but it seems people prefer using the main one :rolleyes:

just keep moving the render/lighting created threads there then - eventually people will get the point.

dann

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 01:09 PM
i think the problem comes from the fact that no-one ever anticipated anyone producing several thousands of frames of a single flythrough in one continuous shot. working in feature films the longest shot i ever worked on was around 300 frames long. it would never have occurred to me to try and do this as a single GI render, from the very beginning i knew that i would be breaking the shot down into several sections and then creating camera maps so that i could re-project single frames and use 'baked' GI to speed up the rendering. because of the way i split out what i am doing (to bring more into the compositing aspect rather than using straight rendering) this slow down of the rendering has never posed a problem to what in was doing - in fact until it was brought up here i doubt that anyone ever knew of the slow-down.

Are you kidding me? I did a continuous 11,000+ frame shot with R7 once (it ran about 7 and 1/2 minutes @ broadcast rez PAL). Took over a week to render and was set to music. Wish I still had the file. It was visualising a quirky 3D UI sort of concept. No GI use then of course. It was done on a not that great single proc machine that wouldn't have handled it.

You are right that film stuff often runs for a couple of seconds a shot only because of the way editors cut film nowadays (2 seconds, cut, 3 seconds, cut, long 7 second shot, cut, 1 second shot, cut..).

A lot of viz stuff can easily run into a couple of thousand continuous frames though, especially if it has voiceover narration or is set to music. It helps keep people's attention pinned on the subject being visualized or explained. The other way around you get powerpoint animated. For construction projects, nothing gives people a better sense of what's being done than a long, hovering camera shot that shows the subject from different angles. Looks great when it is projected too, which is how a lot of arcviz is presented.

Its worth noting that a lot of more artsy work is deliberately composed of really long takes that give the viewer time to take in the subject properly and think about it. A lot of people deliberately avoid the Hollywood cut-cut-cut method of shooting and editing to distinguish the visual language from commercial filmmaking.

Janine
09-11-2005, 01:19 PM
A lot of viz stuff can easily run into a couple of thousand continuous frames though, especially if it has voiceover narration or is set to music. It helps keep people's attention pinned on the subject being visualized or explained. The other way around you get powerpoint animated. For construction projects, nothing gives people a better sense of what's being done than a long, hovering camera shot that shows the subject from different angles. Looks great when it is projected too, which is how a lot of arcviz is presented.

But that's exactly what usually sends me to sleep... I find nothing more boring than neverending uneventful camera moves. Depending on the voiceover and music that can even add to the sleepyness. ;)

Ernest Burden
09-11-2005, 01:57 PM
I was hoping this thread would be solety about creative tweaking and uses of cinema to get he best out of AR, but man its really heading south fast.

The thread is 'so impressed with AR2.5', so it about how impressed one is, or isn't. Some are less impressed, that is on topic. Call it bitching if you want, but the overall issue is whether this 2.5 brings us to where we wanted to be at this point in time and vs other industry products. IMO it does not, but is still a good product. We wanted AR3, got AR2.5.

If you wanna use maxwell then use the damn maxwell plugin, if you wanna use final render when it comes out, then do so, if you want Vray, tell them you want it

I pre-ordered Maxwell and Final Render, and personally told the vRay guys that I want it for C4D (and they seem to be working on providing it). I've joined at least STRAT in reporting the GI animation bug to Maxon. What else can we do, Kai, besides 'bitching' here? We are not part of the developement or betatesting team.

When the 'camera animation' feature was added in v9 to speed up GI animation and get rid of the nasty flickering of 'standard' (which makes it useless for animation) wasn't it tested? Isn't that what betatesting is all about? You test a new feature to see if it does what it is designed to do? You have to read what I'm 'bitching' about to see that mostly its about a big, fat, ugly bug, one that has survived into a second version. If you are a beta tester then you dropped the ball. I know about beta work, I've been involved in beta testing most versions of Datacad since 1987. It has very few bugs, by the way, great app.

So stop looking for praise-only threads and help us get rid of this bug that leaves Cinema with no viable GI animation option.

ThirdEye
09-11-2005, 02:21 PM
help us get rid of this bug that leaves Cinema with no viable GI animation option.

does this happen with GI only or even without GI?

STRAT
09-11-2005, 02:34 PM
does this happen with GI only or even without GI?

gi only. it's the accumulation of samples from the last frame to the current, no matter what render settings you choose.

AdamT
09-11-2005, 02:49 PM
I believe Maxon characterizes the GI slowdown as a limitation rather than a bug.

Ernest Burden
09-11-2005, 03:23 PM
I believe Maxon characterizes the GI slowdown as a limitation rather than a bug.

Sorry, all, to again use this, but here's the problem. The manual (remember the manual?) says:

"Camera Animation

...The radiosity data will be reused for all frames, giving you the same effect in a fraction of the usual render time. In addition to saving time, this option helps you to create flicker-free radiosity animation"

I guess I was fooled by "the same effect in a fraction of the usual render time."

So it not a limitaion, its a bug. Its a feature that does not perform as advertised.

I also appologise to all for being negative. I really like Cinema and want it to work for my business. It almost does, so we're close. In the meantime, though, I do not even have AR2.5 yet to hit the ground running with baking, or Maxwell 1.0 or FR2 or vRay. What should I do? I have GI animation that must be handed in next week, and another one that I may be hired to produce for a few weeks after that. At least for the second I'll have 9.5 in hand, so I'm feeling better about that. If I get the project.

Srek
09-11-2005, 03:43 PM
Sorry, all, to again use this, but here's the problem. The manual (remember the manual?) says:

"Camera Animation

...The radiosity data will be reused for all frames, giving you the same effect in a fraction of the usual render time. In addition to saving time, this option helps you to create flicker-free radiosity animation"

I guess I was fooled by "the same effect in a fraction of the usual render time."


I think this is over all a misunderstanding on what happens during camera animation GI.
Samples calculated for a frame will be saved and those samples that can be reused for the next frame do not have to be recalculated resulting in speed gain and less flickering.
However over time the number of samples increases drasticaly and since you can't simply get rid of earlier samples (depending on Diffuse Depth old samples still have an influence even if they are not within cameraview anymore) the number of samples that has to be used for calculation increases over time. For short sequences this will give you a speed bonus, for long sequences it will give you a speed penalty. In both cases it assures the best possible sampling and little flickering if at all.
So no, it's not a bug, it's a consequence of having a GI solution that decreases flickering to a minimum.
Cheers
Björn

flingster
09-11-2005, 03:49 PM
all these alternative renderers being made available do some good things and bad things in my mind for AR.

1) they to highlight where maxon can improve AR, no bad thing in my mind
2) provide user choice and essentially different looks
3) may in the long run damage AR development....why? i hear you yell..heh heh well if users are using an alternative their suggestions for improving AR may drop off over time leaving maxon thinking AR is fine as less people are suggesting improvements...which ends in a vicious circle of the developers then concentrate on it less and the gap ultimately widens...so i can see people don't like endless complaints about AR as i don't, but they may actually be doing us a favour by highlighting AR still actually needs maxon keeping their eye on the competition and focussing a bit of development time on improvements. Anyway i'm going off topic...slap my hand and call me suzie!

there is mention of sub forum and fall off of tips/sharing/helping/crits threads and i'd agree...if moving lighting and rendering type threads for awhile into a sub forum i'm in favour... new users are posting work and getting very little crit or direction...NOT good imo, we need to focus our efforts into this sharing ethos rather than fault finding a little more ... if you see work posted please take the time to comment and share advice if you have it ... we all feed off this helping us all to improve our standard of work even the pros learn stuff all the time ... so give a little people and it'll come back ten fold ...well worth the effort.

keep up the good work...:thumbsup:
glad to see we are being a little more sensible about it we have a common goal ultimately so there is very little need for friction amongst us all.

Srek
09-11-2005, 04:00 PM
all these alternative renderers being made available do some good things and bad things in my mind for AR.

1) they to highlight where maxon can improve AR, no bad thing in my mind
Check

2) provide user choice and essentially different looks
Check
3) may in the long run damage AR development....why? i hear you yell..heh heh well if users are using an alternative their suggestions for improving AR may drop off over time leaving maxon thinking AR is fine as less people are suggesting improvements...which ends in a vicious circle of the developers then concentrate on it less ...
No Check

As long as the core programmers of CINEMA 4D are personaly most interested in the advancement of the renderengine this will not happen.
It's a bit the other way around, if it werent for the work done to make it easy for other renderengines to be integrated into CINEMA, CINEMAs own renderengie would have gotton more attention lately. So it is more of a shortterm drawback then a long run damage.
Cheers
Björn

Ernest Burden
09-11-2005, 04:19 PM
I think this is over all a misunderstanding on what happens during camera animation GI...over time the number of samples increases drasticaly...
For short sequences this will give you a speed bonus, for long sequences it will give you a speed penalty.

So no, it's not a bug, it's a consequence of having a GI solution that decreases flickering to a minimum.


Short sequences? The problem becomes huge within the span of one second of animation. The manual simply says the feature is there to speed up animation, it leaves out all the rest. I understand the explanation of what's happening. But Maxon seems to simply accept this rather serious problem as if it was meant to be that way.

Is Cinema4D a package capable of doing GI animation for your typical customer? If so, which of the four modes would you advise using?


Oh--has Maxon looked at using a refined-mesh form of radiosity like Lightscape had and Max now has? If so, is that a rejected path or one still open for AR3?

Srek
09-11-2005, 04:23 PM
Short sequences? The problem becomes huge within the span of one second of animation. The manual simply says the feature is there to speed up animation, it leaves out all the rest. I understand the explanation of what's happening. But Maxon seems to simply accept this rather serious problem as if it was meant to be that way.

Is Cinema4D a package capable of doing GI animation for your typical customer? If so, which of the four modes would you advise using?

Ernest, i have not seen this problem arise personaly. From the way Camera Animation GI is implemented several seconds should be no problem. Please send me a scene showing the problem so we have a chance to check it.
Please send the scene to b_marl (at) maxon (dot) de
Cheers
Björn

AdamT
09-11-2005, 04:52 PM
Actually I hope it is a bug, because then it might be possible to fix without a crazy lot of work. If it turns out to be a limitation, though, for the short term the manual should be corrected to explain it. Of course for the long term it should be eradicated.

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 05:52 PM
1) they to highlight where maxon can improve AR, no bad thing in my mind

The biggest lesson to learn from Maxwell I think is just how many people want a crisp, neutral, photoreal look out of their renders, not stylized or CG looking stuff. I'm one of those people. I've done enough stylized renders and watched enough stylized renders in various media. Now I want to take it to the next level, and that level requires a synthetic photography sort of approach to rendering where the renderer respects how light, materials and cameras behave in the real world and in real life, with some extra user control to allow for some flexibility. Faking that real-life-photography look in AR takes hours of manual tweaking and the end result falls short of what Maxwell does naturally all or most of the time in my experience.

Preferred renderstyle is something that comes down to personal taste (or imposed by client or supervisor wishes... whichever is the case). I like renders that look real enough that you almost want to reach in and touch the objects, or can see yourself walking around the spaces depicted. That's why I prefer Maxwellrender. Stuff done with it really does give you that looking-through-glass sort of feeling. Like Andronikos, I'm far less impressed with Vray or Finalrender sort of stylized candy CG realism and prefer Maxwell's as-real-as-possible render approach.

The other thing I like about Maxwell is its lack of compromises in rendering. It takes what it does to almost purist extremes. It requires a lot of CPU horsepower to really take advantage of it, but at least it does what it does without throwing limitations in the render artist's way. Its worse, in my opinion, to spend money on extra hardware for a renderer that doesn't do anything extra with it. With Maxwell at least, that CPU power goes straight into creating the most realistic lighting and surfaces and DOF and blur possible.

That's my opinion on it. I want no-compromises rendering without weaknesses in the renderer that expose themselves at some unfortune moment in the middle of a project. I don't think brute forcing it is such a bad idea actually. At least you work with something there that can render whatever you throw in front of the virtual lens. I haven't seen Maxwell not being able to render a single thing I've thrown at it, even if the rendertimes can be hideously long. With biased renderers, the rendering headaches are more pronounced and more plentiful in my experience.

MJV
09-11-2005, 05:56 PM
Actually I hope it is a bug, because then it might be possible to fix without a crazy lot of work. If it turns out to be a limitation, though, for the short term the manual should be corrected to explain it. Of course for the long term it should be eradicated.

It's simply a consequence of saving up samples over time and never purging them. I'm sure a solution could be worked out with a little attention.

Janine
09-11-2005, 06:18 PM
I want no-compromises rendering without weaknesses in the renderer

Extreme rendertimes and more grain than you can shake a stick at aren't weaknesses then?

I really don't want to sound rude but it's really hard to take any of what you're saying seriously if you don't at least show one single serious image that you've created.

STRAT
09-11-2005, 06:31 PM
Ernest, i have not seen this problem arise personaly. From the way Camera Animation GI is implemented several seconds should be no problem.
Cheers
Björn

unfortunately that is not correct for my experience. this slowdown becomes intollerable after only 50 or so frames in most cases.

i'm sure other 3d progs dont suffer the same fate, and even though i'm no coder, it doesn't seem like a huge problem for Maxon to solve either. it just seems to be a case of flushing the samples before each next frame render.