PDA

View Full Version : The "AR 2.5 vs the rest" thread!


Pages : [1] 2 3

Janine
09-09-2005, 08:36 PM
So I seem to have been er nominated to start this new thread... Anyway, let's see how the new Advanced Render 2.5 holds up against the competition now that we've got the new area lights, faster blurry reflections and overall speedups!

Here is a scene from the free stuff section at evermotion.org (converted to .c4d with some basic materials applied but no lighting set up yet):

download scene in .c4d format (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/fraktal_kitchen3.zip)
download scene in .obj format (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen_obj.rar)
download scene in lw format (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen_lw.zip)
download the (original) scene in .max format (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/fraktal_kitchen_max.rar)


Original image:
http://www.3dfluff.com/files/fraktal_kitchen.jpg

You can use this as a guidline but feel free to make it look even prettier. ;)

Use any renderer you like, maxwell, vray, finalrender etc... and of course AR 2.5. Hopefully this will turn into a nice big thread with some hard facts (ie pictures) to look at.

--------
Another edit: forgot to thank Simon Reeves for converting the max scene to obj. :D

vid2k2
09-09-2005, 08:41 PM
Very generous, Janine :)

I'd also like to see 9.5's AR shine.

vesalus
09-09-2005, 08:56 PM
to get the exercise more accurate, all texture mat should be the same whatever the renderer is, its too easy to get something pleasing to the eye with a decent map and could disturb any judgement...
i'm in for the maxwell test (i dont own the AR 2.5 yet ), i'll run tests this week end :)

once i'll start, i'll provide some maps.

ghopper
09-09-2005, 09:08 PM
to get the exercise more accurate, all texture mat should be the same whatever the renderer is, its too easy to get something pleasing to the eye with a decent map and could disturb any judgement...
i'm in for the maxwell test (i dont own the AR 2.5 yet ), i'll run tests this week end :)

once i'll start, i'll provide some maps.

Agreed, and the camera angle should stay the same as well.

Ernest Burden
09-09-2005, 09:11 PM
once i'll start, i'll provide some maps.

Why maps? Just render the image the best you can without maps. If a program has map-less surfacing, use that. Cinema, for example.

Janine
09-09-2005, 09:18 PM
to get the exercise more accurate, all texture mat should be the same whatever the renderer is, its too easy to get something pleasing to the eye with a decent map and could disturb any judgement...
i'm in for the maxwell test (i dont own the AR 2.5 yet ), i'll run tests this week end :)

once i'll start, i'll provide some maps.

I don't think we should make it too restrictive. It's supposed to be a fun exersize as well. I'd say let everyone apply their own textures and materials (although it seems to me like the original doesn't actually use any maps at all, possibly the tiles, but even they could be procedural).

The only thing I would say - don't apply lots of noisy textures and patterns to all the objects to cover up any artifacts, we want to see nice clean walls. ;) Just keep it simple.

Janine
09-09-2005, 09:38 PM
I've updated the scene so that the camera matches the one in the original pic (see first post).

vesalus
09-09-2005, 10:55 PM
janine, could you make a target camera please or the maxwellrender wont match...

thanks!

Janine
09-09-2005, 10:58 PM
janine, could you make a target camera please or the maxwellrender wont match...

thanks!

It doesn't have to match 100%, I wouldn't worry.

Ric535
09-09-2005, 11:02 PM
janine, could you make a target camera please or the maxwellrender wont match...

thanks!

create a null object, transfer it to the camera, move it forwared a bit ( away from the camera) give the camera a target tag, drop the null object into the target - Done!

vesalus
09-09-2005, 11:02 PM
ok then i'll send the file (cinema4D with camera and 2 maps, one for the rug and one for the tile plus maxwell tags applied) tomorrow, still got my work to finish...
i'll be back tomorrow :bounce:

edit: sorry rick, you were too fast...

so yes i create a null, but you didnt mention that it must be shift-create a null, otherwise it wont work... ;)

Ric535
09-09-2005, 11:14 PM
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5291/fra19ri.jpg


i'll go first then, quick test -

22 mins

AR 2.5
Strength 100%
Accuracy 70%
Prepass 1/2
Diffuse Depth 2
Stoch Smples 300
Min res 80
Max res 120

colour mapping 2-1 exponential


no area lights for this test or blurry reflections,

lighting = emitter in window, light at camera position - no shadow, sun - hard shadow

might try again with higher settings

vesalus
09-09-2005, 11:15 PM
nope, it just create the null directly within the camera, then a litll tweaking to match a bit and , voila...

sorry :wip:

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 11:34 PM
ha ha. hurry up dudes. I'm already in grainland and test rendering. Large image is @9 minutes. :)

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/2259/mwkitchwip3zl.jpg

MJV
09-09-2005, 11:35 PM
I think it would make comparisons easier if the position/direction of the sun was pre determined.

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 11:40 PM
I'm not using a sun yet. Just bouncing a triangular emitter off the ceiling. Lets have some fun with this kitched scene. Produce variations (day, night, fridgelight only and so forth).

Janine
09-09-2005, 11:42 PM
I think it would make comparisons easier if the position/direction of the sun was pre determined.

My sun is at -2190/1408/-146 (omni light with hard shadow, haven't made it parallel, too lazy) Matches roughly with the original pic.

lightblitter22
09-09-2005, 11:49 PM
Ok. I'm killing my kitchensink-DOF render and switching to the regular sun/camera format. Last state at 17mins 38s:

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3849/kitchensinkabort3yx.jpg

ThePriest
09-10-2005, 12:05 AM
nice work ric, your test looks great

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 12:56 AM
rendering from the conventional angle with skydome GI through window now. The M~W preview window shows this:

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3271/mwellsmall6my.jpg

Janine
09-10-2005, 01:06 AM
Here are my first few tests:

http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/kitchentest1.jpg

Excuse the smallness and crap quality for now, still a long way to go. ;) I usually spend a lot of time in the beginning just trying to get the mood right and then turn up the quality. The one on the left was my first test, the one on the right is the latest one. Now when I look at them all I think I like the light distribution in the second one best... So I'll try to get that back.

Ric535
09-10-2005, 02:28 AM
Thanks Priest

heres a final test for now

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5975/a3ed052cq.jpg

Same light setup as before

Higher Rad settings -

1hr 35 mins (over 2 machines - notice the obvious spilt in the image)

AR 2.5
Strength 100%
Accuracy 80%
Prepass 1/1
Diffuse Depth 2
Stoch Smples 550
Min res 100
Max res 160

colour mapping 2-1 exponential

(Area shadows for sun and blurry floor)

Quick postwork - heres original render http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/893/a34ke.jpg

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 03:01 AM
Nicely done. I'm going for something more surreal...

JIII
09-10-2005, 03:27 AM
isn't the point of this to be realistic?

-j3

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 04:33 AM
janine, could you make a target camera please or the maxwellrender wont match...

thanks!

In General:

To match the maxwell camera to a existing camera do this:

1 -Create your new camera with maxwell tag.

2 -Create your new camera target- do not attach the expresso target tag to the maxwell camera yet.

3 -Align the new maxwell target to the original camera target using your transfer function in cinema 4d. (If there is an original camera target). Skip this step is there is not one present.

4 -Do the same for the maxwell camera to the original camera. Once you have completed the transfer step, place a protection tag on the Maxwell Camera to keep it locked in place and to prevent accidental movement.

5 -Everything should be aligned. At this time, you can now drop your new maxwell target into the slot for the target expression on the maxwell camera.

The views should match as long as you do not move the target.

williamsburroughs
09-10-2005, 06:13 AM
Rendermania is a freak on the leash that he holds...so ya know what they say...

Those who hold the leash are INXS. :)

This should be fun! Thanks for post J! :love:

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 06:34 AM
I have a fairly nice Maxwell Render version coming...I will let it cook for thirty minutes and then post the results. I am expecting some noise. I will not perform any post processing.

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 06:49 AM
Here are my first few tests:
Excuse the smallness and crap quality for now, still a long way to go. ;) I usually spend a lot of time in the beginning just trying to get the mood right and then turn up the quality. The one on the left was my first test, the one on the right is the latest one. Now when I look at them all I think I like the light distribution in the second one best... So I'll try to get that back.

Nice test renders Janine, a lot of variations in lighting. I like it alot. The lighting is really remarkable.

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 06:49 AM
Thanks Priest

heres a final test for now
Quick postwork - heres original render http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/893/a34ke.jpg

I like it alot Ric!

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 07:19 AM
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/499/maxwellartest6uk.jpg

Here is a 30 minute shot from Maxwell Render Beta 1.2.2a (Yes, lots of noise, you bet). This is the scaled down from 640x480 original. It is a early morning shot as you enter the kitchen to start your coffee.

The lighting set consists of a light orange-brown plane emitter outside the window measuring 8in x 8in and a small 2in diamter white color diamond shaped emitter (semi-omni with much less geometry) as fill. I will add another one to boost the level at the bottom cabinents and skylight (light blue).

Stats:

Burn 0.67
Monitor Gamma 1.44
Film ISO 120
Shutter Speed 190.81 (1/s)
fstop 4
Geometry:

Num Meshes: 219
Num Triangles: 181057
Num Vertexes: 92279
Num Normals: 124660

Materials:

Num Emitters: 2
Num Diffuse: 157
Num Metals: 56
Num Plastics: 0
Num Dielectrics: 4

Bitmaps:
Num Bitmaps: 0


The original raw render -

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/3536/maxwellartest26zs.jpg

I will post a cleaner version later this weekend.

neosushi
09-10-2005, 08:23 AM
Nice thread Janine :) It's pretty interesting to see how other renders handle the scene. I must say that the new Area-Lights in AR 2.5 are absolutely awesome. Render times have melt down to 10-30% on my testing files i have used. Anyway looking forward with what kind of images you all come upt with.

cheers
::neosushi::

Srek
09-10-2005, 09:04 AM
The one on the left was my first test, the one on the right is the latest one. Now when I look at them all I think I like the light distribution in the second one best... So I'll try to get that back.
The first and second one look like a kitchen, the last one like a vray render ;)
Nice start.
Cheers
Björn

Janine
09-10-2005, 10:53 AM
the last one like a vray render ;)

Is that good or bad? ;)

Here's a new test btw (still low quality), still not quite happy with it, needs more experimenting. But it's getting there. I'm making mine a bit sunnier than the original. I'll probably try to use blurry reflection on some of the materials... Might take a weekend to render, but I've got time. ;)

http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/kitchentest2.jpg

neosushi
09-10-2005, 11:34 AM
Looking great Janine :thumbsup:
Can't wait to see the final result. After getting my hands on the new AR i guess there is no need vor vray render connection to C4D :) Anyway i'd say AR can procduce a much faster image in a super high quality (looking at the 3D Fluff training movies about GI you made).


cheers
::neosushi::

vesalus
09-10-2005, 11:51 AM
it's becoming to look interesting janine, lets wait and see a blotch free higher quality render in 800 x 600, by the way i find the outside a little burn so is the wall above the lamp, and the furniture shadows on the tile are maybe to straight or pronounced...

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 11:55 AM
isn't the point of this to be realistic?

I'm just... er... doing some creative rearranging to give the GI something more interesting to chew on.

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5233/surrealkitch9ig.jpg

Janine
09-10-2005, 12:05 PM
I'm just... er... doing some creative rearranging to give the GI something more interesting to chew on.

Ahem... random scattering of the furniture isn't part of this exercise I'm afraid. :D I'd rather see how the GI chews on the scene as it is.

lightblitter22
09-10-2005, 12:17 PM
I do animation/directing, not arcviz. That scene is too static for my taste without the 'poltergeist' flying furniture effect. :)

edit: no worries. the preview looks just like classic Vray arcviz so far.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/3087/polter6ol.jpg

basti
09-10-2005, 01:00 PM
hi

some really nice images in here already - especially from ric and janine :)

here's my completely different attempt (most boring lighting i ever did i guess hehe):
http://pixellusion.de/public/diffuse_fraktal_ding.jpg
pretty much diffuse lighting only but i think it's interesting to see a gi look without any splotches rendered in less than 9 minutes. i used an arealight in the window with areashadows which is causing the noise.
setup was done in a few minutes (less than rendering time) .. maybe i'll find enough time to create a nice lighting and show another picture.

little edit:

rendered another one with the arealight moved slightly into the room. this eliminated the noise and rendertime is now about 7minutes:
http://www.pixellusion.de/public/diffuse_fraktal_ding2.jpg
ok... i have to get back to my job now

basti :)

Ric535
09-10-2005, 01:17 PM
DOH! - dont you just hate it when you put the GI settings too high and go to bed expecting a nice clean render when you wake :)


http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/6482/unrender7zj.jpg

JIII
09-10-2005, 01:20 PM
I think ric's is the best by far :-P.

-J3

Janine
09-10-2005, 01:43 PM
DOH! - dont you just hate it when you put the GI settings too high and go to bed expecting a nice clean render when you wake :)

LOL!!! That's a classic!

Srek
09-10-2005, 01:49 PM
I do animation/directing, not arcviz. That scene is too static for my taste without the 'poltergeist' flying furniture effect.

I have no problem with this, but sadly your contributions will then not be usable for direct comparisons to the other renderings. Maybe start a new thread then, since not sticking to the original setup goes completely against the idea of this thread.
Cheers
Björn

ernia
09-10-2005, 03:55 PM
Here's my contribution. Going after a soft morning light with a low ambient illumination, maybe a little Vermeer-esque. There are a few artifacts that I could take out in PS, but I thought it would be more useful for this exercise to leave them in.

25 min
blurry reflection floor only
4 lights
area shadows
no AA yet (check back later for comparison render and time)

190 percent
80 percent
1/3
1
600
30
200

http://www.mplusxdesign.com/c4d/kitchenmorn.jpg

Edit: Ok, here's the 1 x 4 AA render. Took an additional 13 minutes on top of the 25 min non-aa image.

http://www.mplusxdesign.com/c4d/kitchenmorn_aa.jpg

ernia

Janine
09-10-2005, 04:06 PM
Looks good Ernia! Nice atmosphere.

AdamT
09-10-2005, 04:12 PM
Very nice Ernia! I love the quality of light you achieved there.

Here's my entry--more of an afternoon sun look:

http://www.3danvil.com/1.12.jpg

R9.5
two area lights with area shadows, plus one infinite light with area shadows;
slight blur on the floor (5%);
GI settings:
Str: 100%
Acc: 70%
Pre: 1/1
DD: 2
SS: 300
Min: 20
Max: 100

I also used a number of comp tags for higher AA and GI accuracy.

Render time 1h 12m on dual Xeon 2.4.

I cleaned up a few minor artifacts in the pic above. Straight render is here (http://www.3danvil.com/1.jpg).

Jorge Arango
09-10-2005, 04:19 PM
http://www.jearango.com/kitchen1.jpg


http://www.jearango.com/settings1.gif


About 52 mins on a G5 2MH

One sun at the position given by Janine, infinite, hard shadows, intensity 190, slightly yellowish
One area light with area shadows, size and position of window pane, intensity 70, rest to default
one omni light in the center of the room, no shadows, intensity 29,

Floor and walls materials, generate gi strength to 200%

Still some splotches on the left wall.




Jorge Arango

Jorge Arango
09-10-2005, 04:31 PM
Here's my contribution. Going after a soft morning light with a low ambient illumination, maybe a little Vermeer-esque. There are a few artifacts that I could take out in PS, but I thought it would be more useful for this exercise to leave them in.

25 min
blurry reflection floor only
4 lights
area shadows
no AA yet (check back later for comparison render and time)

190 percent
80 percent
1/3
1
600
30
200

http://www.mplusxdesign.com/c4d/kitchenmorn.jpg

ernia

I very much like the mood of your scene and the color of the light but I would expect a brighter illumination from the reflection of the sun in the floor. What do you think?


Jorge Arango

ernia
09-10-2005, 04:59 PM
I very much like the mood of your scene and the color of the light but I would expect a brighter illumination from the reflection of the sun in the floor. What do you think?


Jorge Arango

You are right, Jorge. I did that, but I didn't like how the shadows got too dark above the cabinets and the ceiling lights. I'll try adding another light in there to bring up that warm bounce light off the floor.

Wow! Thanks Janine. I consider that a fine compliment. Good thing I bought that radiosity dvd of yours (and Mash) :thumbsup:

And thanks to you too Adam!

I wish I could save the scene; I would do some comparisons with 9.1.

thanks,
ernia

vesalus
09-10-2005, 05:05 PM
so far ernia is my favorite despite the violet tone of the mood, i'd be curious to see what it gives once enlighten more with a warmer light color...

by the way isnt the light outside the window a bit to low?
if you watch on the left side of the image thats the overall impression you've got as it tend to burn the outside wall on its lower part, the higer intensity seem below the tapper ( not sure of the word, lets say the water dispenser) ;) and the shadows going upward of the furniture?

still, so far my favorite for the overall soft mood

ernia
09-10-2005, 08:23 PM
so far ernia is my favorite despite the violet tone of the mood, i'd be curious to see what it gives once enlighten more with a warmer light color...

by the way isnt the light outside the window a bit to low?
if you watch on the left side of the image thats the overall impression you've got as it tend to burn the outside wall on its lower part, the higer intensity seem below the tapper ( not sure of the word, lets say the water dispenser) ;) and the shadows going upward of the furniture?

still, so far my favorite for the overall soft mood

Update. Warmer fill, added 2 new omnis w/orange color to accent appliances and fridge and rear wall a bit, raised spill lights in window. Is this a bit more agreeable, vesalus?

Edit: Oh yeah. 45 min render time

http://www.mplusxdesign.com/c4d/kitchenmorn_kickers.jpg

ernia

alanmac
09-10-2005, 08:24 PM
Do you not think it interesting that its a great thread with AR 2.5 being compared to other renders for its quality, lack of artifacts etc. but now people are commenting on the "mood "
felt by the users settings/skill of the image.

To me, it sayes its not about the most photorealistic render program, the one with the least or no artifacts etc, but how the skill of one user can bring to a scene more than just the sum total of the elements within it, or the render program used.

Whilst one scene may technically be correct from a light point of view, we will prefer another because of the feeling it has, the mood it gives off. That's to me sayes its the art and skill of the user, not what any program can create at the click of a mouse.

Great work, good thread.

Alan

STRAT
09-10-2005, 08:33 PM
i'd be interested to see the AR2.5 put through it's paces further -

ie, everything i've seen in this thread, imo, looks a fair way from photoreal (no offense guys, just my opinion). how about try it with the settings bumped up even if it takes longer. for some reason we all seem to be looking for speed here. how about a render for quality over speed maybe?

Srek
09-10-2005, 08:37 PM
Whilst one scene may technically be correct from a light point of view, we will prefer another because of the feeling it has, the mood it gives off. That's to me sayes its the art and skill of the user, not what any program can create at the click of a mouse.

I think this points out something many forgot. Most users of 3D renderengines do use them because they have paying customers, or are employeed to do renderings. Most of the time they are not free to choose the exact look and feel but have to stick to guidelines and objectives given. The main skill is then to be able to reach a specific look. In many cases the question then is not which renderer produces the most photorealistic results, but which renderer gives me the flexibility and power to get a specific look in a given timeframe.

Cheers
Björn

AdamT
09-10-2005, 09:07 PM
Great, Ernia! Now turn up the AA.

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 09:59 PM
Is that good or bad? ;)

Here's a new test btw (still low quality), still not quite happy with it, needs more experimenting. But it's getting there. I'm making mine a bit sunnier than the original. I'll probably try to use blurry reflection on some of the materials... Might take a weekend to render, but I've got time. ;)



Jannine that is an acceptable render in my opinion. Based on how much time I have and the particular project. I would use AR2.5 for speed over Maxwell. If I had loads of time - greater than an hour for print resolution- I would need at least 5 to 8 hours for Maxwell - I have no issues with using AR2.5 to get this particular job done.

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:10 PM
Ernia: very nice, i really like the hazy bright morning mood. Like the glow.

Bjoern & Alan: totally agree! :)

ernia
09-10-2005, 11:13 PM
Ok. This is it for me today. Used 1 x 8 AA. Didn't do anything. I think the baseboard artifacts in the lower left of image are radiosity artifacts not AA. Remember, I left the radiosity artifacts in on purpose. No post in this image. Render time 1 hour.

http://www.mplusxdesign.com/c4d/kitchenmorn_plusAA.jpg

ernia

Edit: thanks Janine! I'll be interested to see what you and others come up with :buttrock:

AdamT
09-10-2005, 11:19 PM
Looking better, but the tile wall still needs more AA. 2x4 would probably do fine.

vesalus
09-10-2005, 11:25 PM
as far i'm vonvern, i used the word mood because i didnt want to use realism, wich the ernia image isnt yet to my pow, i asked for a brighter lightning because with a brighter one the artifact tends to show more, it would fit the vray render more and at last but not the least most of the time when it come to viz, clients ask for a bright day of july kinda render, so ok the mood is there but the realism of light isnt, thats a good work but not what i'm after...

to be more efficient i'd like to ask also what was the time spend on the light setup, mat setup, render setup, and on what kinda hardware it was done, my 2 cent...

ps: i'm sorry i had a bit more work today, and still on it, i couldn't run any tests yet but i will asap

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:25 PM
Right, I think I'll declare this one done. ;)

I used the hdri output and then tweaked the exposure. The original is very very contrasty and overexposed, but hey, that's what the hdri output is for! :D Color mapper would have worked too but the hdri output actually lets me control all of that afterwards.

Here's the render after changing the exposure, gamma and turning up the saturation slightly (no other photoshopping):
http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/tweakedexposure.jpg


Here's the original render (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/originalexposure.jpg) and a screenshot of the settings (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/screenshot.jpg).

Took about 8.5 hours to render. Which isn't too bad for the amount of blurry reflection I've used. ;) There's some blurry transparency on the oven door as well.

The illumination is actually a combination of 2 area lights, one sunlight (omni with hard shadow) and a little bit of old fashioned sky dome light. 95% splotch free. ;)

Artistically I have to say it's probably not that amazing, I want something a bit more exciting, but I wanted this one to look similar to the original. Next I'll do something a bit more exciting with it. ;)

ernia
09-10-2005, 11:27 PM
Looking better, but the tile wall still needs more AA. 2x4 would probably do fine.

Ohhh. You're right, Adam. Got pressman's eye -- look at something long enough and you can't see what is obvious to someone else.

I'll rerender and replace.

Janine, that looks nice. I really like the yelo color change in the window and under the chair :) How many lights are you using? Now that's what those wall tiles are supposed to look like, huh Adam?

thanks,
ernia

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:32 PM
Looking better, but the tile wall still needs more AA. 2x4 would probably do fine.

Actually, the tile shader is a bit poo. Or rather the way I set it up in the original scene file. I've changed mine since (and I also forgot to assign it to the wall on the left). If you want to make the tiles look like in my render and make it look good with 1x4 AA, open the "walls" object and set tiles to 1.5/1.5 each. Then change the tile shader -> grout/bevel width 5% each and U scale 200%. And I've set the mapping to cubic.

Janine
09-10-2005, 11:37 PM
Janine, that looks nice. I really like the yelo color change in the window and under the chair :) How many lights are you using?

Thanks! :) It's 3 lights and a bit of light from the sky.

Now that's what those wall tiles are supposed to look like, huh Adam?

Haha, well see my last post, the tiles weren't set up very well, not your fault. ;)

Continuumx
09-10-2005, 11:50 PM
Here is a my Maxwell Render scene again from:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2625810&postcount=30

Changed some of the materials, switched a few of them out with Maxwell Render material tags. Not to happy about the darker brown counter and cabinet material as it is just a standard cinema 4d material with color. I would prefer a wood grain or bump texture, but I will maintain it texture map free as the focus here is on render quality.

***UPDATE: I changed the medium brown and light tan materials to Maxwell Render Plastic Tag so that there would be a equal comparison to the render reference which is taking advantage of slight gloss to cabinets and counters. I will post a new render to replace this one shortly.

I am still going to go with the old lighting setup because I prefer it more than the original high-contrast reference image. I have not received the AR2.5 update yet, so I will use Maxwell for this test.

This result is 21 minutes into the render cook. I will post updates as it reaches an acceptable result. I have it set up for maximum of 12 hours. I do not think this image will require that. I predict a good clean result in a maximum of 5 hours. I may be a little off because I am not using any additional render threads for this render. I have to also work on the spectacular entry!

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/3077/maxwellartest321min8xr.jpg

nycL45
09-10-2005, 11:54 PM
A couple/three submissions have artifacts where the baseboard at the left meets the floor. Also, window jamb artifacts appeared in a couple of the entries. Is there a 100% C4D , i.e., without any post, way of eliminating these artifacts?

Kudos to all participants. Nice work.

mt_sabao
09-11-2005, 12:06 AM
janine´s and ernia´s are f**kin A!
Where´s that portuguese stuborn guy now? hey twilight? ;)

Cheers all, great thread.
Luis C.

Janine
09-11-2005, 12:07 AM
A couple/three submissions have artifacts where the baseboard at the left meets the floor. Also, window jamb artifacts appeared in a couple of the entries. Is there a 100% C4D , i.e., without any post, way of eliminating these artifacts?

Yes, turning up the quality... :p

mt_sabao
09-11-2005, 12:08 AM
Here is a my Maxwell Render scene again from:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2625810&postcount=30

Changed some of the materials, switched a few of them out with Maxwell Render material tags. Not to happy about the darker brown counter and cabinet material as it is just a standard cinema 4d material with color. I would prefer a wood grain or bump texture, but I will maintain it texture map free as the focus here is on render quality.

I am still going to go with the old lighting setup because I prefer it more than the original high-contrast reference image. I have not received the AR2.5 update yet, so I will use Maxwell for this test.

This result is 21 minutes into the render cook. I will post updates as it reaches an acceptable result. I have it set up for maximum of 12 hours. I do not think this image will require that. I predict a good clean result in a maximum of 5 hours. I may be a little off because I am not using any additional render threads for this render. I have to also work on the spectacular entry!

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/3077/maxwellartest321min8xr.jpg

Hey Continuumx, turn the antenna a bit to the left, we have a bad reception here! :D

Jorge Arango
09-11-2005, 12:16 AM
Here is a my Maxwell Render scene again from:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2625810&postcount=30

Changed some of the materials, switched a few of them out with Maxwell Render material tags. Not to happy about the darker brown counter and cabinet material as it is just a standard cinema 4d material with color. I would prefer a wood grain or bump texture, but I will maintain it texture map free as the focus here is on render quality.

I am still going to go with the old lighting setup because I prefer it more than the original high-contrast reference image. I have not received the AR2.5 update yet, so I will use Maxwell for this test.

This result is 21 minutes into the render cook. I will post updates as it reaches an acceptable result. I have it set up for maximum of 12 hours. I do not think this image will require that. I predict a good clean result in a maximum of 5 hours. I may be a little off because I am not using any additional render threads for this render. I have to also work on the spectacular entry!

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/3077/maxwellartest321min8xr.jpg

The sun is projecting shadows on the ceiling. While it could be bouncing off a lake or pool, that doesn't look realistic, if realism is what you're after.


Jorge Arango

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 12:34 AM
The sun is projecting shadows on the ceiling. While it could be bouncing off a lake or pool, that doesn't look realistic, if realism is what you're after.


Jorge Arango

Let's suppose this is an apartment in a highrise and the time is sometime after sunrise. I think it would be possible, depending on the viewer POV and the actual horizon line.

:)

Jorge Arango
09-11-2005, 01:04 AM
Let's suppose this is an apartment in a highrise and the time is sometime after sunrise. I think it would be possible, depending on the viewer POV and the actual horizon line.

:)

Why not? It could also be in the Himalayas or the Andes
:p

Jorge Arango

ThePriest
09-11-2005, 01:12 AM
Here is a my Maxwell Render scene again from:

Tests from another maxwell user I dug up from searching for VRay search related threads.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=201882&page=1

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 01:17 AM
Why not? It could also be in the Himalayas or the Andes
:p

Jorge Arango

Jorge, I live in San Francisco and for the most part, the landscape is anything but flat. From my perspective it is definitely possible for the above condition to exist when you are hundreds of feet above sea level in one part of the city and in another within 1000 feet the landscape is at sea level.

Can you give some practical standpoint for why this light condition cannot exist?

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 01:19 AM
Just flip the image upside down. It won't be any weirder than the render I posted in the other AR thread (didn't fit the format here, heh heh...).

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 01:21 AM
Tests from another maxwell user I dug up from searching for VRay search related threads.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=201882&page=1

Thanks ThePriest, I had completely forget that InTheCIty did that wonderful render.

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 01:41 AM
Maxwell Render UPDATE: 59 min 38 secs - Restarted as I switched out the diffuse material cabinets and counters for plastic material tag to get some specularity.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/5545/maxwellartest359min6tk.jpg

Jorge Arango
09-11-2005, 01:51 AM
Jorge, I have no idea of what are you are referring to here, but I live in San Francisco and for the most part, the landscape is anything but flat. So it is definitely possible for the above condition to exist when you are hundreds of feet above sea level in one part of the city and in another within 1000 feet the landscape is at sea level.

Not all renders visualizations are situated in some landscape in the Spanish countryside.

Either way, this is my version and I like it.

Come on Continuumx, that's what I'm saying in my post. I am admitting that it's possible. Sorry if it looked otherwise. And I don't live in Spain, I live in Colombia. At an altitude of 2100 meters, 1 1/2 hours drive and I get to 5400 meters, that's about 17.700 feet. So. I do know what mountains are and by the way, I love them. You're lucky to live in SF. Good luck with your render.
:)

Jorge Arango

K. Scott Gant
09-11-2005, 02:19 AM
any way we could get the .obj file for this scene? I looked on the Evermotion site and can't seem to locate it in any of the free stuff there. Or perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong place.

Thanks.

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 02:24 AM
I'm back in the race with the original setup. Sunlit kitchen, Bladerunner edition. :thumbsup: (no worries, will have proper materials soon...)

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/3122/kitchenrunner0np.jpg

AdamT
09-11-2005, 05:02 AM
Twilight test:

http://www.3danvil.com/night.jpg

Ric535
09-11-2005, 05:22 AM
ooh, nice one Adam!

Here's a new one from me, similiar settings to before but... different :)


http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/4076/1393ji.jpg

trescool
09-11-2005, 07:31 AM
Wow inspiring stuff.

Great thread, I allways tend to lurk but thought I would add my bit.
I have bought AR2.5 should arrive soon so I am very pleased with these results on show.
I have pre ordered cebas FR2 which between the two I think will have just about any render
requirement covered.

PS. thanks lightblitter22 you seem to make a good case for the insane using maxwell

Squirrel
09-11-2005, 10:24 AM
hi! didnt get to install the 9.5 yet, so this is a 9.1 render (AA geometry). basic GI setup with some photoshop work (only slight color corr., and brightness/contrast, levels)
rendertime around 3 hrs / PIV 2,4Ghz.
hope u like it
squirrel

http://www.screen-o-delics.com/images/kitchenexp_3.jpg

Janine
09-11-2005, 11:40 AM
Here's my nighttime version, only 2 area lights (the same ones as before but different colors and brightnesses):
http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/night.jpg

I used the hdri output again and brightened it up afterwards. Made the blue a bit more saturated and added some glow and a bit of sharpening. But that's all I did, no other photoshopping. I used the same settings again, took about 7.5 hours this time.

Next I'll do a similar one but with the lights on. :) And indirect lights like Adam did (thanks for the idea Adam hehe).

Janine
09-11-2005, 11:43 AM
any way we could get the .obj file for this scene? I looked on the Evermotion site and can't seem to locate it in any of the free stuff there. Or perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong place.

Thanks.

No problem, here it is: kitchen_obj.rar (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen_obj.rar)

FantaBurky
09-11-2005, 12:36 PM
This one is gonna BLOW YOUR MINDS!

For a change, I thought I'd show you mine, which is an exact replicate of my P.O.V. in the morning.

USING NOTHING ELSE BUT CINEMA 4D R.9.1 (NO MAXWELL, NO ADVANCED RENDER)

With a renderfarm of 100 COMPUTERS!
Each with these specs:

PC - HP XW 8200 CPU workstation
- 2 x 3.4GHz, 2GB RAM, 160Gb system
- nVidia FX1400 graphic for dual monitors
Dual LVD 320 SCSI-kit XW8000 including
DVD & CD burner, Internal Firewire
Seagate Cheetah SCSI 146 GB
2 Samsung SM193T TFT 19" monitor

And a scene with about 15 LIGHTS!

Render time of 3.5seconds!
Postproduction of 1.5minutes!

Please dont send to many PM's about how I created this one, I will perhaps explain later.


http://web.telia.com/~u52221489/my_pov.jpg

BazC
09-11-2005, 12:40 PM
I've converted the scene to Lightwave to open up the rendering possibilities a bit! It's pretty close to the Cinema file though I managed to lose the tile mat during conversion, no big deal though!

Here's the file (http://www.savefile.com/files/5552124)

Janine
09-11-2005, 12:56 PM
I've converted the scene to Lightwave to open up the rendering possibilities a bit! It's pretty close to the Cinema file though I managed to lose the tile mat during conversion, no big deal though!

Here's the file (http://www.savefile.com/files/5552124)

Great, I've uploaded it to the ftp and will include a link in the original post.

vid2k2
09-11-2005, 01:52 PM
Here's a slightly different approach without GI.
I used AO instead. For the experiment, I left the AO default settings
and thought the results were of interest. Adjusting the AO to other
than default would improve the images but haven't had time to do that part.

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 02:34 PM
Maxwell Render Effort:

The scaled down version to match reference image size-

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7077/maxwellarsmall4tg.jpg

I normally would with Maxwell render at least twice the size of the render resolution that I need, so in this case, I feel this is right regardless of the noise and with no post production. This render is pure Maxwell Render Beta 1.2.2a.

I might do a version with AR2.5 once I receive the update as I am pleased with AR2.5 handling of the scene so far from other examples in this thread.

Here unscaled version - the result looked very much the same after 5 hours, there was some noticeable reduction of noise as this represents the result after 9 hours.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2356/maxwellartest942min2fp.jpg

Stats:

Time 9 hours 42 min

Burn 0.67
Monitor Gamma 1.44
Film ISO 120
Shutter Speed 190.81 (1/s)
fstop 4

Geometry:

Num Meshes: 219
Num Triangles: 179288
Num Vertexes: 90501
Num Normals: 124453

Materials:

Num Emitters: 1
Num Diffuse: 79
Num Metals: 60
Num Plastics: 75
Num Dielectrics: 4

Bitmaps:

Num Bitmaps: 1

Ric535
09-11-2005, 02:47 PM
some really good attempts here!, quality is much improved over last time there was a thread about matching vray

One thing though - all the towels in the cinema renders look really dirty :)

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 02:48 PM
some really good attempts here!, quality is much improved over last time there was a thread about matching vray

One thing though - all the towels in the cinema renders look really dirty :)

Thanks Ric, I agree.

About the towels, I actually got rid of the original material and just made it default cinema 4d material with no texturing.

AdamT
09-11-2005, 02:52 PM
Next I'll do a similar one but with the lights on. :) And indirect lights like Adam did (thanks for the idea Adam hehe).
No problem, I'll look forward to your improved implementation. :)

BTW, I also used 32 bit render and tweaked exposure/gamma in post. The straight render looked like a*s.

TimC
09-11-2005, 03:11 PM
Ok had to have a try at this. My version doesn't use any lights (no auto light) and no GI. I have just used ambient occlusion and luminance. So it doesn't fit with the 'rules', however I thought it would be an interesting exercise.

I've used AO in the materials rather than the global AO, this way you can use the layer shader to composite the AO. Using this method you can then use colour in the AO shader so that all the occluded areas aren't grey. This could still be worked on as the chrome material is a little too grey. I've also used quite a lot of blurred reflection.

I may try baking the materials in the whole scene to see how successful it is and what the speed increase is (I'm sure it will be massively faster).

Spec is:
iMac G5 1.8Ghz
Rendertime : 2hrs 20min
AA - Best, min 2, max 4, threshold 6.
768x576 pixels
AO settings ranged from max length 100 - 350, 128 samples.

I think the results so far are really interesting. Although some should check the tile texture as it really does let some of the renders down. That said there are some great results..

http://www.hypa.tv/tims/misc/kitchen.jpg

cheers
TimC

Janine
09-11-2005, 03:45 PM
Ok had to have a try at this. My version doesn't use any lights (no auto light) and no GI. I have just used ambient occlusion and luminance. So it doesn't fit with the 'rules', however I thought it would be an interesting exercise.

Not bad for no lights and no gi! Looks interesting, almost like an illustration.

I think the results so far are really interesting. Although some should check the tile texture as it really does let some of the renders down.

You're right. I've updated the scene file in the original post, fixed the tile shader. Should look a lot better now.

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 05:08 PM
Maxwell Render Cinema 4D Plugin Beta 1.2.2a Update

Small amount of couple minutes post work with Photoshop CS2:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4381/maxwellarpost4ka.jpg

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting (http://imageshack.us)

hundredthirtyseven
09-11-2005, 06:37 PM
I've seen really good splotch-free results here with even nicer blurry reflections. But I haven't seen any results that come close to reality. Not even the Maxwell render...or especially not the Maxwell render. So sorry to say that but in my opinion the tool (AR or Maxwell in this case) is currently much better than the people using it:)
But that's just my point of view. I hope I'm not hurting anyone, that wasn't my attention. Keep up the good work!

Per-Anders
09-11-2005, 06:38 PM
continuumx - it's an ok render, but it looks like it's all self illuminating/glowing, not very realistic lighting. maybe there's some ambient that shouldn't be there in the materials?

STRAT
09-11-2005, 06:39 PM
I've seen really good splotch-free results here with even nicer blurry reflections. But I haven't seen any results that come close to reality. Not even the Maxwell render...or especially not the Maxwell render. So sorry to say that but in my opinion the tool (AR or Maxwell in this case) is currently much better than the people using it:)
But that's just my point of view. I hope I'm not hurting anyone, that wasn't my attention. Keep up the good work!

hehe, more or less exactly what i said further back in this thread (on page 4).

guys, how about fogetting super speedy render times and just go out for a top notch realistic render? c4d will certainly do it, but you must be brave enough to eek up those settings ;)

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 06:44 PM
continuumx - it's an ok render, but it looks like it's all self illuminating/glowing, not very realistic lighting. maybe there's some ambient that shouldn't be there in the materials?

Mdme_sadie, I think you are correct. I do have the skylight turned much higher than I usually use. It was more of an experiment with the skylight settings. And I did add some post work that was a little too much in the bloom department. I did that on purpose too!

I agree, even the reference image was not realistic in the lighting area. So I took a lot of artistic license to give an image that I think is actually very good. I will keep the skylight setting in mind to test lower settings in another excercise and be more gentle with the post bloom.

MJV
09-11-2005, 06:56 PM
This took three hours due mostly to the blurry reflections. Takes one hour without them.

http://www.mvpny.com/fraktal_kitchen2mv9NOGI3ae.jpg

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 07:00 PM
This took three hours due mostly to the blurry reflections. Takes one hour without them.


Very nice MJV, I like the subtle line effect on the edges. Nice sparkles!

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 07:05 PM
I've seen really good splotch-free results here with even nicer blurry reflections. But I haven't seen any results that come close to reality. Not even the Maxwell render...or especially not the Maxwell render. So sorry to say that but in my opinion the tool (AR or Maxwell in this case) is currently much better than the people using it:)
But that's just my point of view. I hope I'm not hurting anyone, that wasn't my attention. Keep up the good work!

True, what would be better is a photo of the actual condition to scrutinize more closely how the scene should look in reality.

I recommend if there are more of these in the future, we focus on an actual photo representation and maybe together we can participate in a group built scene model. Then we can do proper render comparisons.

AdamT
09-11-2005, 07:14 PM
hehe, more or less exactly what i said further back in this thread (on page 4).

guys, how about fogetting super speedy render times and just go out for a top notch realistic render? c4d will certainly do it, but you must be brave enough to eek up those settings ;)
Feel free to join in. :)

Ph0n33z
09-11-2005, 07:17 PM
TimC: While your render is far from photorealistic, I absolutely LOVE the style! I have been looking for how to do something in between photo/art/illustration.

I think you may have found it!

I was wondering if you could post your material settings, or take a pic on where u placed
the AO shader, what settings as far as color, and what luminance settings u used. Thanks!

STRAT
09-11-2005, 07:43 PM
Feel free to join in. :)

yup, i usually would, but i must decline at the mo only my current circumstances dont permit me to join in :(

JosephGoss
09-11-2005, 07:57 PM
I've seen really good splotch-free results here with even nicer blurry reflections. But I haven't seen any results that come close to reality. Not even the Maxwell render...or especially not the Maxwell render. So sorry to say that but in my opinion the tool (AR or Maxwell in this case) is currently much better than the people using it:)
But that's just my point of view. I hope I'm not hurting anyone, that wasn't my attention. Keep up the good work!

i think some of the renders are near photoreal, the only thing the render are lacking are decent textures

remmeber these scenes have plain colours, not textures. and i think a scene like this needs textures to be a bit more "real"
then again.,i am new to photorealism, so just my view.

JosephGoss
09-11-2005, 08:01 PM
What I just said is probably a load of nonsense, lol,



Oh well



lol

AdamT
09-11-2005, 08:08 PM
i think some of the renders are near photoreal, the only thing the render are lacking are decent textures

remmeber these scenes have plain colours, not textures. and i think a scene like this needs textures to be a bit more "real"
then again.,i am new to photorealism, so just my view.
That's true, textures are essential for true photorealism, including color, bump, gloss, and reflection maps. That's a lot of work and personally I don't have time for it right now.

TimC
09-11-2005, 08:30 PM
TimC: While your render is far from photorealistic, I absolutely LOVE the style! I have been looking for how to do something in between photo/art/illustration.

I think you may have found it!

I was wondering if you could post your material settings, or take a pic on where u placed
the AO shader, what settings as far as color, and what luminance settings u used. Thanks!

sure here you go.

kitchen scene (http://www.hypa.tv/tims/misc/hypa_kitchen.c4d)

cheers
TimC

Ph0n33z
09-11-2005, 09:09 PM
sure here you go.

kitchen scene (http://www.hypa.tv/tims/misc/hypa_kitchen.c4d)

cheers
TimC

Thankyou so much Tim! I appreciate it greatly!

So I assume you have the full version of 9.5 then? I didnt know it had finally shipped out to people. Thanks!

jorust
09-11-2005, 09:59 PM
Here's a 45 min render with LW 8.3/FPrime 2.0 (Dell M70)

The materials are far from finished, but the lightning are ok...

AdamT
09-11-2005, 10:08 PM
That looks nice--very clean GI.

ernia
09-11-2005, 11:20 PM
There are some good renders here, folks. I'm really like the feel of Janine's and Adam's interpretations. Here's my final.

3.5 hours
2x4 AA (thanks Adam)

190 percent
85 percent
1/1
1
1080
60
360

no photoshop

ernia
Edit: Wow! Just fixing the cabinet doors problem added 1.25 hours to the render time :eek:
http://www.mplusxdesign.com/c4d/kitchenmorn_final.jpg

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 11:20 PM
i think some of the renders are near photoreal, the only thing the render are lacking are decent textures

remmeber these scenes have plain colours, not textures. and i think a scene like this needs textures to be a bit more "real"
then again.,i am new to photorealism, so just my view.


I agree with you. But emphasis on this excercise was placed on lighting and surfaces. If the surfaces are good, then any texture as long as it is scaled appropiately is going to push the majority of these renders to another level. That being said, the textures would also need to be somewhat convincing or photoreal.

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 11:23 PM
Here's a 45 min render with LW 8.3/FPrime 2.0 (Dell M70)

The materials are far from finished, but the lightning are ok...

Excellent entry Polymess. Glad to have you here.

This is rather remarkable. I hope that the cgsociety moderators see this kind of interaction across platforms and engines is a good thing for the whole community. Maybe an even larger challenge of some kind with a rather difficult scene to texture, light, and render that could become something on the scale of the very popular CGsociety theme challenges.

Canadianboy
09-11-2005, 11:26 PM
well do you guys want to do that then. lets find some textures that everyone can agree on and test them out

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 11:27 PM
There are some good renders here, folks. I'm really like the feel of Janine's and Adam's interpretations. Here's my final.

3.5 hours
2x4 AA (thanks Adam)

190 percent
85 percent
1/1
1
1080
60
360

no photoshop

ernia

Good and rather clean Ernia. The artifacts that were present along the base of the cabinets and floor are much more diminished. The only thing I can point out is that there is just a little much overall smoothing to the image. I cannot wait to explore AR2.5 when it arrives.

TimC
09-11-2005, 11:30 PM
Thankyou so much Tim! I appreciate it greatly!

So I assume you have the full version of 9.5 then? I didnt know it had finally shipped out to people. Thanks!

we have already preordered 9.5 at HYPA, however it hasn't arrived yet. I'm lucky enough to beta test which is why I have 9.5 already.

Tim

TimC
09-11-2005, 11:33 PM
Here's a 45 min render with LW 8.3/FPrime 2.0 (Dell M70)

The materials are far from finished, but the lightning are ok...

looks like a good GI solution. Can you add the tiles back in and add some blurry reflection for a better comparison?

cheers
Tim

Continuumx
09-11-2005, 11:36 PM
looks like a good GI solution. Can you add the tiles back in and add some blurry reflection for a better comparison?

cheers
Tim

I do not think the tiles were texture map, if I remember right, the tiles were entirely procedural which some engines (Maxwell Render) do not support at the moment.

lightblitter22
09-11-2005, 11:40 PM
Stick the tiles shader on a flat plane with neutral lighting, render it head on with AR then map that bitmap into the Maxwell render. I've used that to transfer procedurals to Maxwell before. Sort of like lotek texture baking.

Janine
09-11-2005, 11:43 PM
I've uploaded a jpg version of the tiles here (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/tiles.jpg).

Janine
09-11-2005, 11:45 PM
Stick the tiles shader on a flat plane with neutral lighting, render it head on with AR then map that bitmap into the Maxwell render. I've used that to transfer procedurals to Maxwell before. Sort of like lotek texture baking.

It's even quicker if you just slap it on the background object.

ernia
09-11-2005, 11:45 PM
Maxwell Render Effort:
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7077/maxwellarsmall4tg.jpg


Thanks Continuumx. Nearly doubling the stoch samples really helped.
On your image, though, which is coming alone nicelly btw, I can't quite figure out the shadows on the kitchen table. Where is that hard-shadow light coming from?

ernia

AdamT
09-11-2005, 11:57 PM
It looks to me like there's an emitter in the window, rather than an infinite light (sun). That's making the lighting look weird.

I've tried to render this scene in Maxwell but it's a total flop. Something seems to be sucking out all the light. :shrug:

ernia
09-12-2005, 12:02 AM
Well if it's coming from the window and the chair has a solid back, why are there two shadows? It's almost like there is a light from the right causing the two cups to make shadows. Huh, strange.

ernia

Janine
09-12-2005, 12:19 AM
Another one, with 8 area lights all casting area shadow. About 9 hours.

http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/lamp.jpg

Again just a bit of color correction in PS and some glow. I could probably eliminate the last few grainy bits by turning up the shadow samples...

AdamT
09-12-2005, 12:23 AM
Well if it's coming from the window and the chair has a solid back, why are there two shadows? It's almost like there is a light from the right causing the two cups to make shadows. Huh, strange.

ernia
He's probably go area lights in both the window and the door (to the right).

Continuumx
09-12-2005, 12:33 AM
Thanks Continuumx. Nearly doubling the stoch samples really helped.
On your image, though, which is coming alone nicelly btw, I can't quite figure out the shadows on the kitchen table. Where is that hard-shadow light coming from?

ernia

Thanks for the comment Ernia. I think I just figured it out. A fellow Maxwell Render user, Mihai, pointed out that it looked like there was another light in the scene opposite the window.

Guess what!?!? There is this rather large hole in the wall opposite the window!?!?!?:scream:

That kind of thing reeks havoc on scenes with Maxwell Render where your model has to be right because of the manner of the light calculations. So I have this rather large 12x10 hole on the wall opposite the window.:eek: Well I have plugged it up:thumbsup:, and I must now do another render as this completely makes the previous one not at all right.

I was in such a rush to get this render going. I will have to really inspect these models next time. Well I shall have something new to show soon. And this time, I have learned much more!:applause:

Continuumx
09-12-2005, 12:35 AM
He's probably go area lights in both the window and the door (to the right).

No light at the hole (DOOR), except the light flooding in from the skydome...I had no idea that hole (DOOR) was there!?!?!

It is fixed now...

Janine
09-12-2005, 12:40 AM
No light at the hole (DOOR), except the light flooding in from the skydome...I had no idea that hole (DOOR) was there!?!?!

It is fixed now...

Hehe... Well all my renderings are with that "hole" (its a doorframe! :p) casting light into the room too.

ernia
09-12-2005, 12:47 AM
Guess what!?!? There is this rather large hole in the wall opposite the window!?!?!?:scream:

That kind of thing reeks havoc on scenes with Maxwell Render where your model has to be right because of the manner of the light calculations.

I'll be darned. Well as they say "the eyes give way the soul" I suppose shadows give way the light, wherever it may be coming from. Bummer you have to rerender. How about some photoshop?

ernia

ps. nice render, Janine :)

Jorge Arango
09-12-2005, 01:50 AM
Another one, with 8 area lights all casting area shadow. About 9 hours.

http://www.3dfluff.com/files/kitchen/lamp.jpg

Again just a bit of color correction in PS and some glow. I could probably eliminate the last few grainy bits by turning up the shadow samples...


This is a very good rendering Janine. I find the illumination of the right part very pleasing as it suggest that something is going on (in terms of lighting) beyond the picture border. The light temperature is very well balanced. The only thing that bothers me is that I cannot find a logical source for the light hitting the window frame.

Jorge Arango

Janine
09-12-2005, 01:56 AM
The only thing that bothers me is that I cannot find a logical source for the light hitting the window frame.

Hmm, me neither! :D Looks like I applied a comp tag to the window frame and switched off recieve shadows at some point and forgot about it.

Ric535
09-12-2005, 02:50 AM
here's another


http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6296/2555232b5combo14jb.jpg


AR 2.5
4 Hours
Strength 100%
Accuracy 80%
Prepass 1/1
Diffuse Depth 2
Stoch Samples 2000
Min res 400
Max res 600
colour mapping 2-1 exponential

Continuumx
09-12-2005, 03:16 AM
It looks to me like there's an emitter in the window, rather than an infinite light (sun). That's making the lighting look weird.

I've tried to render this scene in Maxwell but it's a total flop. Something seems to be sucking out all the light. :shrug:

Hello Adam,

What is your scene setup like?

Continuumx
09-12-2005, 03:19 AM
Hehe... Well all my renderings are with that "hole" (its a doorframe! :p) casting light into the room too.

I just assumed that you would light this scene similar to what I was thinking, minus the door opening!

Actually it is a good lesson. I did a small preview of the new setup and it looks much better thanks to the comments from everyone here and Mihai.

I used your sun object location so that the lighting would be more similar. I kept my tint color for the lighting because I prefer it more.

I should have something to show tomorrow morning (PST).

AdamT
09-12-2005, 04:44 AM
Hello Adam,

What is your scene setup like?

I tried one with sky and sun only, one with emitters only, and one with emitters and sky. They were all really really horrible. There must be something up with the geometry or something, but I don't know why it isn't affecting your scene. I did split up the walls to apply separate materials, but that's it.

zoetropeuk
09-12-2005, 08:39 AM
Here's my quickly set-up maxwell render.

Render time 8:50:31, SL15
Physical Sky
Sunlight
9:30am 15th of December, Sydney Australia.

http://forum.360precision.com/360/maxwellkitchen.jpg

I'll fix the textures tonight and resubmit a more accurate (textures etc) tomorrow.

MrBraun
09-12-2005, 09:14 AM
THis is my try:
Cinema4d 9.5 demo

1) One Parallel light 120% - Hard shadow;
2) One emitter;
3) One omni 20%;

Settaggi Rady:
Strength 100%
Accuracy 60%
Prepass 1/2
Diffuse Depth 2
Stoch Samples 500
Min res 200
Max res 300
colour mapping 2-1 exponential

2.30 Hours


http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126508640.jpg

moka.studio
09-12-2005, 09:17 AM
good thread -

bumping up.

hundredthirtyseven
09-12-2005, 09:28 AM
Here is my try:

AR 2 with 9.1 still

1 area light with area shadow
1 light emitting plane in the window with a white 300% luminous material
1 omni in the middle of the room set to 20% without shadows

ar settings:

accuracy: 40%, but i used a 70% tag on the walls
diffuse depth: 3
stoch samples: 400
min/max: 70/180

Blurry reflections on everything but the chairs
Changed the tiles since it only worked with a high AA...costs too much time
No post work rendered originally in 800*600
Glow and sharpen effect added in Cinema

Render time: 1h 05m (on a 430 Cinebench point machine)

ThirdEye
09-12-2005, 09:35 AM
http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126508640.jpg

the AA is terrible, there are some splotches here and there but... the lighting is very natural, i see a lot of potential in this image, keep trying and improving it!!

ThirdEye
09-12-2005, 09:37 AM
Here is my try:

AR 2 with 9.1 still

1 area light with area shadow
1 light emitting plane in the window with a white 300% luminous material
1 omni in the middle of the room set to 20% without shadows

ar settings:

accuracy: 40%, but i used a 70% tag on the walls
diffuse depth: 3
stoch samples: 400
min/max: 70/180

Blurry reflections on everything but the chairs
Changed the tiles since it only worked with a high AA...costs too much time
No post work rendered originally in 800*600
Glow and sharpen effect added in Cinema

Render time: 1h 05m (on a 430 Cinebench point machine)

not bad at all, interesting one, i'd try the scene in C4D 9.5 demo and increase the AA, the rendertimes will be a lot better in 9.5

Continuumx
09-12-2005, 09:41 AM
I tried one with sky and sun only, one with emitters only, and one with emitters and sky. They were all really really horrible. There must be something up with the geometry or something, but I don't know why it isn't affecting your scene. I did split up the walls to apply separate materials, but that's it.

I used ended up using a 1200 inch x 1600 inch plane for the sun (very soft gentle shadows). You could call it a billboard. But it looked good in the test render. Fingers crossed for the larger render.

I did only use the physical sky - I did not enable the sun light system.

The location is the same as Janine posted. I went through all objects and optimized them because the first time, I got some geometry errors.

I wonder if that is what you got when you tried it?

MrBraun
09-12-2005, 09:46 AM
..the AA is terrible, ..

hehhehehe !! I havn't used !! ;)

Into new try i must use it !! :D

Tnx ThirdEye !! ;)

vesalus
09-12-2005, 09:48 AM
adamT what must sucks all lights is the fact that there must be some open geometries, i did a lil preview last night and got a lot of black dots, so i simply took each objects and detriangulate them with Ngons turned on, and it seems to work, by the way, to get the default maxwell sun light entering throught the window (madrid 11h in july ) you must put all your stuffs in a null and rotate H: 90°

so here's my tests


link to the big 1024x768 daylight image... (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mrtomtom/kitchenday.jpg)

link to the smaller night light image... (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mrtomtom/kitchennight.jpg)

the day one set up ( 1024x 768 ):

20 minutes to put every tag on according objects
2 minutes light setup ( physical sky with sun at 12h 15 july madrid )
5 to close every open geometries and rotate the all stuff

1 seconde to hit render, 8 hours cooking on a P4 2,4 ghz with 1 Go Ram
sample level 17 reached for 18 asked
1 minute filtering with noise ninja
done

and for the night one ( @ 800x 600) :
simply add an emitter tag (150W) to each of the 3 spheres lamps
remove all sky option and hit render
cooked for 2 hours ( reached sample level 15 for 18 asked )
denoising in 1 minutes
done

i'll give it a go once more textured with 9.5 and maxwell with more work on, once i'll have some time... ;)

edit :
link updated

MrBraun
09-12-2005, 09:55 AM
The link on night image don't work !! ;)

Continuumx
09-12-2005, 09:55 AM
adamT what must sucks all lights is the fact that there must be some open geometries, i did a lil preview last night and got a lot of black dots, so i simply took each objects and detriangulate them with Ngons turned on, and it seems to work, by the way, to get the default maxwell sun light entering throught the window (madrid 11h in july ) you must put all your stuffs in a null and rotate H: 90°

so here's my tests


link to the big 1024x768 daylight image... (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mrtomtom/kitchenday.jpg)

link to the smaller night light image... (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mrtomtom/kitchennight)

the day one set up ( 1024x 768 ):

20 minutes to put every tag on according objects
2 minutes light setup ( physical sky with sun at 12h 15 july madrid )
5 to close every open geometries and rotate the all stuff

1 seconde to hit render, 8 hours cooking on a P4 2,4 ghz with 1 Go Ram
sample level 17 reached for 18 asked
1 minute filtering with noise ninja
done

and for the night one ( @ 800x 600) :
simply add an emitter tag (150W) to each of the 3 spheres lamps
remove all sky option and hit render
cooked for 2 hours ( reached sample level 15 for 18 asked )
denoising in 1 minutes
done

i'll give it a go once more textured with 9.5 and maxwell with more work on, once i'll have some time... ;)

Yep, that is what I got the first time too, when you get black dots that is a signal that you have some geometry problems. The optimize function seems to have fixed the problem for now in my case.

jorust
09-12-2005, 11:50 PM
OK. This one took 90 minutes on my 3 GHz P4 Dell.
LOTS of blurry reflections.
There's some AA issues, but the lightning is nice. I think...

http://homepage.mac.com/janoverust/.Pictures/cgTALK_0002.jpg

vesalus
09-13-2005, 12:19 AM
polymess, thats a nice one, what are the settings and setup?

jorust
09-13-2005, 12:41 AM
Thanks vesalus.

The setup i VERY easy!

3 lights.
One area light outside the window w/falloff (intensity 18%), a small area light wo/falloff (63%) as the sun, and a pointlight inside the room, wo/falloff and not shadow (29%).

Radiosity, 2 bounces.

vesalus
09-13-2005, 12:53 AM
i dont doubt of it :) just wondering where you put that point light...

a wire with lights?

jorust
09-13-2005, 01:06 AM
Shure!

The pointlight is in the center of the room.

Here you go!

vesalus
09-13-2005, 01:21 AM
thats why the chair are burn on the right... :)
just :p ... ;)

Continuumx
09-13-2005, 05:22 AM
http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/5141/maxwellar44gr.jpg

This is much better. Thanks to everyone that commented, it was very appreciated as the learning experience proved to be most valuable.

hundredthirtyseven
09-13-2005, 06:23 AM
This time it's AR 2.5. The settings are the almost same except for the area light which is not present in this render. I pumped up the emitter lightness and the omni brightness. I thought lowering the accuracy to 30% would be enough...well it's not:) The walls still have a 70% accuracy tag.

The overall render took 50 minutes.

One suggestion to everyone: I always use the built-in sharpen filter. All Cinema renders look 100% better with a little sharpen effect.

andronikos916
09-13-2005, 06:46 AM
ooohhh...I just saw that thread guys...anyway I have seen some nice rendering here!

...congrats to all.

I will upload soon my version.

...time to bed now.
:wise:
Andronikos

Continuumx
09-13-2005, 06:48 AM
This time it's AR 2.5. The settings are the almost same except for the area light which is not present in this render. I pumped up the emitter lightness and the omni brightness. I thought lowering the accuracy to 30% would be enough...well it's not:) The walls still have a 70% accuracy tag.

The overall render took 50 minutes.

One suggestion to everyone: I always use the built-in sharpen filter. All Cinema renders look 100% better with a little sharpen effect.

Excellent work Supremacy! I was hoping for this after that wonderful render you did for that rather famous car!

What are your min/max settings? Sharpness looks good by the way!

hundredthirtyseven
09-13-2005, 08:18 AM
70/180. Well it's far from being good, it's just the start. It's obvious that the accuracy can be pumped up and that will kill the splotches, but I'm not satisfied with the lighting conditions. Does anyone have a suggestion how to create a real-looking lighting setup for this scene?:)

MrBraun
09-13-2005, 03:45 PM
Hello to all !!

I have seen that the Cinema4d rendering have a problem into left part of the model !!

Hope that this image explain the problem !

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126618018.jpg

Is a problem of AR2.5 ?

vesalus
09-13-2005, 03:59 PM
continummx, theres isnt much shadows in your render, is the light too paralell? is it the dome light with an emiter?

STRAT
09-13-2005, 04:03 PM
even with the splotches and almost self illuminated beige/cream materiall, Supremacy gets my vote for realism so far :) still a fair way to go i wager.

MrBraun
09-13-2005, 04:25 PM
I have make a new rendering, more explicative !!

This problem have into all C4D rendering, except one realized by Maxwell !

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126625023.jpg

The glass seems that follow the camera orintation!! ;)

vesalus
09-13-2005, 04:30 PM
yes, thats odd, for my render i untriangulate with ngons turned on, and clean up a bit to get an opened window...

flingster
09-13-2005, 05:10 PM
in the Janine and MJV images there is a degree of bloom in areas...what are you guys using highlights/blur to achieve this?...please don't say post.

Continuumx
09-13-2005, 05:24 PM
continummx, theres isnt much shadows in your render, is the light too paralell? is it the dome light with an emiter?

I used a very large emitter plane which means the shadows are very soft and light.

The emitter plane is 1600x1200 inches.

If I used a smaller plane something like 8 inch by 6 inch than it would have been much stronger shadows much like the vray example. Which I do not think would happen in reality.

Case in point examples:

http://www.ihi.ca/i/showhome/latest-06.jpg

http://www.ihi.ca/i/showhome/latest-10.jpg

http://www.onefinedaydesign.com/6_4LivingRm_web_lg.jpg

http://www.pedrosola.it/images/fotostanza2.jpg

I think if I did this again at twice the pixel resolution and added a few bump textures here and there, this one would be where it needs to be. Right now, you have to reduce it by 1/2 in resolution so that it matches the reference render to see how sharp the render is and final noise elimination. This is standard for Maxwell Render images from what I have gathered, it is a good rule to render at least 2x your needed resolution size.

http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/2261/maxwellar44grsmall3vd.jpg



The vray example is not at all realistic in my opinion and from the looks of this thread, what has happened for the first time, is C4D renders/plugins are exceeding the infamous Vray realism and look for something much more superior. This is good.

I do conceed that Supremacy's render will most likely be the best once the splotches and anti-aliasing has been eliminated and refined greatly. That changes the whole argument for C4D and render engines like Vray for what can be achieved.

Nixgehtmehr
09-13-2005, 06:36 PM
I've made some test with my Lightwave/Fprime and Maxwell/C4D.

Here my results:

http://hometown.aol.de/Hifiman70/comparison.jpg

both Images need further refinement but I think they are quite OK for about two hours render time.

regards
Mike

Janine
09-13-2005, 08:14 PM
Hello to all !!

I have seen that the Cinema4d rendering have a problem into left part of the model !!

Hope that this image explain the problem !

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126618018.jpg

Is a problem of AR2.5 ?

Hmmmmmm... you're right, something is odd! I had to fix a few geometry erros like that, looks like I missed one. Something must have happend during the ex/import.

Janine
09-13-2005, 08:15 PM
in the Janine and MJV images there is a degree of bloom in areas...what are you guys using highlights/blur to achieve this?...please don't say post.

Post, sorry. ;) I just select all the bright areas in PS, copy and paste them, set it to lighten and gaussian blur it.

Ph0n33z
09-13-2005, 08:25 PM
Janine: I think it would be best for all comparative purposes if you did not use any post....
sort of defeats the purpose of this thread.......imo

Nix: Your Lightwave render is beautiful! I think with a little tweaking, it could be the best
photoreal render yet! Great Work!

THe maxwell render on the other hand is a little too overblown. The cabinet reflection and ceiling above the window are far too bright IMO.

Great work guys, keep it up!

EDIT:

THis is very interesting, I was on my laptop when I looked at Nix's pictures, and when I came on my normal pc, the lighting looked very different! hewhe. Time to change the laptop contrast!

The m~w looked much less overblown on this pc then on the laptop, and the fprime one looked much darker!

twilight
09-13-2005, 08:36 PM
Where´s that portuguese stuborn guy now? hey twilight? ;)
I'm here!! Eheheh... i went out for the weekend and got back late monday to find out that the AR threads have grown into gigantic proportions!!
That can only be good, at last we're focusing on what really matters.

Janine, i like your results a lot and i think they're pretty close to what can be achieved with vray. I miss some of the vray "atmosphere" that i was never able to explain...
Anyway, i think that the AR is getting close to what it's supposed to be.
I'm not that thrilled about the render times, but maybe i'm asking too much.

:)

Janine
09-13-2005, 11:21 PM
Janine: I think it would be best for all comparative purposes if you did not use any post....
sort of defeats the purpose of this thread.......imo

Well I posted the original output of the first one I did, the others were just "bonus". I really didn't do any other post work though. Color correction, sharpening and glow. But no "airbrushing" of artifacts. I could have done all of that directly in Cinema, would that be any different then? ;)

Anyway, I guess the next comparison thread we do should be more like an artist vs artist comparison. Who can recreate a real life lighting situation best. But I think that this thread is showing the positive impact the R9.5/AR2.5 improvements are having on the results.

Ph0n33z
09-13-2005, 11:38 PM
Janine: I meant no offense in what I said. We all know nthat post is a critical part of the
3d process. It can take an average image and make it great. I think it would be great if you could do both, but just make sure to tell us if you do anything extra outside of C4D! Thats all!

Ric535
09-14-2005, 01:17 AM
yet another from me :)

5 bounces, blurry reflections, area shadows - 2 hours 40 mins

might put the GI settings higher and leave it overnight


http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/4294/4211zy.jpg

AdamT
09-14-2005, 01:25 AM
I think the VRay atmosphere can be immitated pretty well by adding bloom in post. Nothing wrong with Janine's method, but I've had good success following this mini-tut: http://www.etereaestudios.com/docs_html/breakfast_11.htm

Ph0n33z
09-14-2005, 04:01 AM
AdamT: Thankyou so much for that tutorial bro! I have not seen such a beautiful result!

EDIT: WOW What an AWESOME site! Everything on there is fabulous! THANKS ADAM!

twilight
09-14-2005, 04:29 AM
Nice tutorial Adam!! Bloom always add great mood to the renders.

MrBraun
09-14-2005, 08:05 AM
Just for fun !! :thumbsup:

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126680600.jpg

destro80
09-14-2005, 08:36 AM
I found some time so I had a go at rendering the scene. It's my first real attempt at using full GI. I know what "splotches" are now....wish I didn't thou.

jorust
09-14-2005, 08:57 AM
So many great renders in this thread. The AR 2.5 is amazing...

Here's one more FPrime. Very noisy, but FUN!!!

http://homepage.mac.com/janoverust/.Pictures/night.jpg

ThirdEye
09-14-2005, 09:37 AM
Nice tutorial Adam!! Bloom always add great mood to the renders.

here's a free bloom generator (diffuse glow) for Ps:

http://www.richardrosenman.com/photoshop.htm

MrBraun
09-14-2005, 10:22 AM
This is another try !

No Radiosity, multipass render:

1) Colour render; (about 1 min render)
2) Ambient occlusion render; (about 15 min render)
3) Key light render; (about 2 min render)

Compositing wiht photoshop ! ;)

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126680527.jpg

Srek
09-14-2005, 10:37 AM
I have make a new rendering, more explicative !!

This problem have into all C4D rendering, except one realized by Maxwell !

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126625023.jpg

The glass seems that follow the camera orintation!! ;)

Hi,
the original geometry is defective. The quad defining the upper and left side of the doorframe is partly collapsed. Either triangulate it or use optimize and n-gons to fix it.
Cheers
Björn

MrBraun
09-14-2005, 10:46 AM
Tnx Srek for the answer !! ;)

Janine
09-14-2005, 11:01 AM
Janine: I meant no offense in what I said. We all know nthat post is a critical part of the
3d process. It can take an average image and make it great. I think it would be great if you could do both, but just make sure to tell us if you do anything extra outside of C4D! Thats all!

But I did :shrug:

kuui
09-14-2005, 12:14 PM
mrbraun, please please stay with your very first try i saw some pages ago!

increase the AA and try to get rid of splotches, but don't change much on the light. forme, this one of yours is the best i've seen so far, basically because it lacks all of the blooming and softening and "lighting" effects that are used in all the other images.

it looks very very natural to me, just like an usual kitchen you can see everyday. i like it alot, it comes very close to "true" realism. the other ones did a great job, too, but they all are using some kind of "atmosphere creating" and special effects. your's, basically, looks like a amateur photo taken in a kitchen. gives me the most "real" feeling of all of them here.

turx
09-14-2005, 01:19 PM
hi all.
i like such threads which motivate all of the community.
here is my first render.

I didn't use GI(radiosity).
C4D R9
Render time: ~ 6 minutes (1024x768)
Render Machine: Amd AthlonXP 1700+(1.47Ghz) , 512RAM

with some postpro:
http://www.turx.com/beta/gallery/3d/fractalkitchen_c4dr9_5min.jpg

> original render is here <
(http://www.turx.com/beta/gallery/3d/fractalkitchen_c4dr9_5min_nopost.jpg)

MrBraun
09-14-2005, 01:48 PM
mrbraun, please please stay with your very first try i saw some pages ago!

increase the AA and try to get rid of splotches, but don't change much on the light. forme, this one of yours is the best i've seen so far, basically because it lacks all of the blooming and softening and "lighting" effects that are used in all the other images.

it looks very very natural to me, just like an usual kitchen you can see everyday. i like it alot, it comes very close to "true" realism. the other ones did a great job, too, but they all are using some kind of "atmosphere creating" and special effects. your's, basically, looks like a amateur photo taken in a kitchen. gives me the most "real" feeling of all of them here.

Tnx Kuui !! ;)
I post new render soon !! ;)

turx
09-14-2005, 01:58 PM
i'm agree with kuui and Thirdeye.

i've impressed by the result you've on that render Mr.Braun.

If you achieve the same settings and put AA to your render it would be great.

zoetropeuk
09-14-2005, 01:59 PM
Here's an early morning (7:30am) Maxwell render.

Time around 3.5 hours SL 13

http://www.360precision.com/360/early_morning.jpg

MrBraun
09-14-2005, 02:18 PM
i'm agree with kuui and Thirdeye.

i've impressed by the result you've on that render Mr.Braun.

If you achieve the same settings and put AA to your render it would be great.

Tnx Turx !! :)

AdamT
09-14-2005, 03:05 PM
mkay, it's starting to tick me off that you guys are able to make M~R work with this scene when it just goes to black here. :banghead:

Ric535
09-14-2005, 05:08 PM
some cool renders - keep em coming!,

Any fR beta tester around to try it out?

I made a boo boo, i rendered this scene overnight and forgot i had switched the textures off. heh heh


http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4532/4317ed.jpg

Some cool plugins on Richard Rosenmans site!

bobtronic
09-14-2005, 05:23 PM
some cool renders - keep em coming!,

Any fR beta tester around to try it out?

I made a boo boo, i rendered this scene overnight and forgot i had switched the textures off. heh heh

Some cool plugins on Richard Rosenmans site!

looks nice anyway :) are this aliasing artifacts or splotches?

btw. have bought Richard's DOF Pro some days ago, great plugin.


cheers,
Bob

Ric535
09-14-2005, 05:29 PM
cheers - i think they are GI splotches - if you see my other render above thats an area (baseboard) where it likes to get most artifacty :)

Jorge Arango
09-14-2005, 05:55 PM
some cool renders - keep em coming!,

Any fR beta tester around to try it out?

I made a boo boo, i rendered this scene overnight and forgot i had switched the textures off. heh heh




Some cool plugins on Richard Rosenmans site!


Artifacts and grain apart, the AR with GI approach looks IMHO much better than the AO or MW renders.


Jorge Arango

AdamT
09-14-2005, 06:31 PM
some cool renders - keep em coming!,

Any fR beta tester around to try it out?
Yeah, it would be cool if Cebas gave the betas permission to participate.

jorust
09-14-2005, 08:14 PM
OK. This is the last one from me.
It's NOT straight out of the render. I had to render to 2048x1536 for to hours. Then resize to 1000x750 to get rid of some AA problems. I also used Neat Image to kill some noise.

Just want's to thank the C4D community for letting us (other...) post in your forum.
A demoversion of C4D 8 got me into this 3D madness.

I think Maxon har a killer app in C4D. Keep it up boys and girls.

Over and out.

http://homepage.mac.com/janoverust/.Pictures/kitchen_forweb.jpg

nycL45
09-14-2005, 09:23 PM
Nice job, Polymess. Good lighting, reflections and crisp and clean.

Thanks for participating.

Continuumx
09-14-2005, 09:41 PM
looks nice anyway :) are this aliasing artifacts or splotches?

btw. have bought Richard's DOF Pro some days ago, great plugin.


cheers,
Bob

I picked up that plugin some months ago and it is just sweet!

Janine
09-14-2005, 10:20 PM
Looks very good Polymess! :thumbsup: And I like what you've done with the tiles.

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 12:46 AM
Yeah, it would be cool if Cebas gave the betas permission to participate.

What's all this secrecy with FR2 all about anyway? The renderer already exists on Max and people have preordered the C4D version on faith. You'd think that they'd want to promote FR2 more at this stage...

Anyway, I'm letting a Maxwell animation render of the kitchen scene run overnight. Let's see what comes out the other end. :)

AdamT
09-15-2005, 06:09 AM
Yep, I like that one alot, Polymess. My only reservation is that the direct light hitting the floor isn't nearly bright enough to justify the overall illumination in the room.

andronikos916
09-15-2005, 09:22 AM
very nice work guys (and girls)...

I had no time to test AR2.5 with this scene but I hope during the weekend...

cy,
Andronikos

Srek
09-15-2005, 09:57 AM
What's all this secrecy with FR2 all about anyway? The renderer already exists on Max a

Where have you seen fR Stage 2 for max?

Cheers
Björn

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 01:06 PM
First part Maxwell kitchen flythrough test. Its somewhat grainy because I cut frames off at sample level 8 (= ~3 mins per frame rendertime on my box). There's no post work done on the frames save for some very basic post motionblur I added (it runs at 15fps. would look jerky otherwise).

http://www.zippyvideos.com/9530741471178636/kitchtest/original

formfollowsforce
09-15-2005, 01:13 PM
@lightblitter22

not bad :applause:

bye
un_titled

Srek
09-15-2005, 01:19 PM
Its somewhat grainy

How about creating one single good looking image instead of many way to grainy ones?
Practicaly every image from you here would not be acceptable to any customer. Nice as a preview to see what to expect for the finished rendereing, dut definitly no finished rendering.
Honestly i can't see you doing Maxwell a good service here, currently you only show mediocre renderings that imho would not encourage anyone to buy it.
I would realy love to see a finished, grain free, Maxwell rendering based on the default scene.
Cheers
Björn

interactiveBoy
09-15-2005, 02:21 PM
First part Maxwell kitchen flythrough test. Its somewhat grainy because I cut frames off at sample level 8 (= ~3 mins per frame rendertime on my box). There's no post work done on the frames save for some very basic post motionblur I added (it runs at 15fps. would look jerky otherwise).

http://www.zippyvideos.com/9530741471178636/kitchtest/original

No offense man, but wasn't the point of this thread to test and compare the different renderers? So far you've not allowed Maxwell to finish a render so you can show the beautiful renders it is capable of. You've been more interested in the creative outlet of making dishes fly, doing animations, etc. I know it may seem boring, but it would be really helpful if you just let a single frame (from original camera view) render so you can show us the quality that Maxwell can achieve that you've been very eager on telling us about. So far, I've not seen it. (Not saying it's not capable, but you've not allowed a render to finish, so we have nothing to compare to) I'm not yet convinced that it is a "production ready" renderer.

MrBraun
09-15-2005, 03:06 PM
This is one render of a great user of www.c4dHoline.it forum (where i'm moderator) !

MrMoose (the user) has post this render:.

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/uploads/post-13-1126787349.jpg

No Rady, no postwork, time render 9 min 55 sec.

One sun light, one area light on the window, one omni on the floor, one omni at center of the room !

For more information, i have open a parallel discussion on my forum, follow this link:

http://www.seikworld.com/public/cinema4d/index.php?showtopic=6390&st=0

Tnx to all and great work here !! ;)

Continuumx
09-15-2005, 03:47 PM
No offense man, but wasn't the point of this thread to test and compare the different renderers? So far you've not allowed Maxwell to finish a render so you can show the beautiful renders it is capable of. You've been more interested in the creative outlet of making dishes fly, doing animations, etc. I know it may seem boring, but it would be really helpful if you just let a single frame (from original camera view) render so you can show us the quality that Maxwell can achieve that you've been very eager on telling us about. So far, I've not seen it. (Not saying it's not capable, but you've not allowed a render to finish, so we have nothing to compare to) I'm not yet convinced that it is a "production ready" renderer.

I am pretty sure the one I showed is convincing. I will render a larger version at 800x600 with no grain.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=2636754&postcount=169

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 05:14 PM
So far, I've not seen it. (Not saying it's not capable, but you've not allowed a render to finish, so we have nothing to compare to) I'm not yet convinced that it is a "production ready" renderer.

I don't have time to prove what Maxwell is or isn't worth to every single individual in this thread. I had some idle CPU time between rendering more serious work and I did the quick Maxwell flythrough with a lighting setup that took literally 30 seconds (its a 500 watt square white emitter placed in the window... that's it... no further tweaking or faking. camera exposure adjusted in realtime on a randomly picked test frame). The kitchen scene doesn't even interest me. Its not the kind of work I do and I used it to bench certain other things that have nothing to do with still GI renderings. Still it might give some people an idea of what you can expect from Maxwell in the around 10 hours it took to crunch 126 animation frames on a dual Xeon 3.0.

With regards to production ready, there's an animation project that my production partner and I have been wanting to get into for ages. Except we'd need 8 extra hands to pull it off at the render quality we want - photoreal - in the amount of time we can allocate to it. With Maxwell its not an issue. We'd much rather take into account longer rendertimes and maybe buy some extra CPUs than go through hours of shading, lighting, rendering, re-rendering and renderpass tweaking orgies every day. We've done that on a similar long project once and that's just not going to happen this time around. Better to wait longer and let the renderer take care of getting the lighting calculation right than spend dozens of hours doing it manually in an annoying render-tweak-render-tweak process.

So pick whichever method suits you. I can sacrifice some time or extra CPU costs if what I get in return is much slicker lighting and rendering workflow. On some projects renderspeed is more important. The Maxwell beta wouldn't be usable for those (at least not for animation).

Continuumx
09-15-2005, 05:18 PM
I don't have time to prove what Maxwell is or isn't worth to every single individual in this thread. I had some idle CPU time between rendering more serious work and I did the quick Maxwell flythrough with a lighting setup that took literally 30 seconds (its a 500 watt square white emitter placed in the window... that's it... no further tweaking or faking. camera exposure adjusted in realtime on a randomly picked test frame). The kitchen scene doesn't even interest me. Its not the kind of work I do and I used it to bench certain other things that have nothing to do with still GI renderings. Still it might give some people an idea of what you can expect from Maxwell in the around 10 hours it took to crunch 126 animation frames on a dual Xeon 3.0.

With regards to production ready, there's an animation project that my production partner and I have been wanting to get into for ages. Except we'd need 8 extra hands to pull it off at the render quality we want - photoreal - in the amount of time we can allocate to it. With Maxwell its not an issue. We'd much rather take into account longer rendertimes and maybe buy some extra CPUs than go through hours of shading, lighting, rendering, re-rendering and renderpass tweaking orgies every day. We've done that on a similar long project once and that's just not going to happen this time around. Better to wait longer and let the renderer take care of getting the lighting calculation right than spend dozens of hours doing it manually in an annoying render-tweak-render-tweak process.

So pick whichever method suits you. I can sacrifice some time or extra CPU costs if what I get in return is much slicker lighting and rendering workflow. On some projects renderspeed is more important. The Maxwell beta wouldn't be usable for those (at least not for animation).

I could not agree more Lightblitter!

No one here is knocking AR2.5- I cannot wait to get my update to use it as well. But it seems some people are bent on shaming the maxwell render plugin no matter the output.

Which in my opinion does not lead to an effective and productive discussion when decent results are obtained and the response is still the same irregardless the output quality.

There has not been one AR result presented here that has not had some kind of artifacting, or anti-aliasing problems. So in essence, the criticism is not balanced and when that situation is present, I have no desire to continue with the discussion.

Ric535
09-15-2005, 06:13 PM
i dont think anyone has really been knocking Maxwell here (appart from a few snide comments) but i think for instance Lightblitter has some real good potential images he a shown but he never seems to let them reach that potential and he shows them to us early on while they are still grainy promising they will be clearer in a few hours but then he never seems to post them later on, its like he is to impatient and he starts a new image or animation before the previous one has really got anywhere

Lightblitter let it cook longer i say :)

Speaking of Maxwell, im about to launch a net render - wish me luck :)

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 06:15 PM
Which in my opinion does not lead to an effective and productive discussion when decent results are obtained and the response is still the same irregardless the output quality.

This has nothing to do with rendertech anyway. If you read between the lines its almost as if people are shouting 'I bill my clients by the hour for my lighting/rendering skills and I don't want that process to get easier/faster/more accessible'. Its always they same with people pushing a mouse for a living anyway. The ones who bill somebody else for all the crappy costs incurred from using ineffective tech or workflow will always defend that working methodology to death, no matter how ineffective it is overall.

Except it doesn't work. You can't stop or slow down progress. Get used to it folks, there are renderers coming along that make your (old) lighting skills practically redundant. The same will happen to modeling and CA and a lot of other things in CG. Learn to live with it.

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 06:17 PM
Lightblitter let it cook longer i say :)

I would, but I'm cooking other stuff at the same time that is not for benchmarking and has more priority. Need to buy some extra CPUs at some point so I have an idle machine I can let run throughout the course of the day.

Ric535
09-15-2005, 06:24 PM
Need to buy some extra CPUs at some point so I have an idle machine I can let run throughout the course of the day.

Yup this is what ive just done :)

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 06:42 PM
I'm going to bulk up seriously on extra CPUs at some point, maybe with two extra Athlon X2 boxes or a quad Opteron machine, but I'm not rushing it at the moment.

AdamT
09-15-2005, 07:03 PM
I'm going to bulk up seriously on extra CPUs at some point, maybe with two extra Athlon X2 boxes or a quad Opteron machine, but I'm not rushing it at the moment.
You might wait and see if NL gets cooperative rendering working right, and/or gets animation working in the Cinema plugin. As of now net rendering is pretty useless with Maxwell.

Janine
09-15-2005, 07:07 PM
We'd much rather take into account longer rendertimes and maybe buy some extra CPUs than go through hours of shading, lighting, rendering, re-rendering and renderpass tweaking orgies every day.

We will never agree I guess. I'd rather be creative and spend hours shading, lighting, rendering and tweaking than press a button and wait all day for a generic looking result. But I guess we have different goals. Your views couldn't be more different from mine.

Get used to it folks, there are renderers coming along that make your (old) lighting skills practically redundant.

lol Wake up, you seem to be trapped in a dreamworld! But it's fine actually, when everyone else will be relying on the software to do the work for them without any idea how to get a particular look or mood, the few people left with traditional lighting skills will be the ones to pick and choose their dream jobs, fine by me.:D

I bet when poser first came out people were going "Yes! Character modelers will soon be totally redundant!" hmm, I dont think so. ;)

Ric535
09-15-2005, 07:19 PM
I'd rather be creative and spend hours shading, lighting, rendering and tweaking than press a button and wait all day for a generic looking result.

this isnt actaully how maxwell works, i dont know why people think like this, just the same as taking a good photgraph requires lots of skill, training and knowledge its not just a click and ooh ive made a pretty picture

Janine
09-15-2005, 07:30 PM
this isnt actaully how maxwell works, i dont know why people think like this, just the same as taking a good photgraph requires lots of skill, training and knowledge its not just a click and ooh ive made a pretty picture

Well I still haven't seen a pretty picture by lightblitter. :p

Continuumx
09-15-2005, 07:49 PM
this isnt actaully how maxwell works, i dont know why people think like this, just the same as taking a good photgraph requires lots of skill, training and knowledge its not just a click and ooh ive made a pretty picture

I agree with you Ric, you (I am talking about anyone who understands Maxwell Render and uses it) have quite a range of creativity with maxwell render- it is not limited, and by a long shot, all renders from maxwell render are not generic.

That is like saying all images taken with a Canon EOS Rebel are all generic and look the same, and that an amateur can take professional images. It is difficult to have an engaging conversation when this is the kind of thinking that one must deal with.

FantaBurky
09-15-2005, 08:02 PM
Well I still haven't seen a pretty picture by lightblitter. :p

Heheh nice argument :thumbsup: . But seriously, not to be a party-pooper (which I tend to be :sad: ), I think this thread is pretty "lame". Not the images rendered, they are all great in different ways. But the thread title just suggestes a war between AR and Maxwell, which is pretty useless since 1. Maxwell isnt even finished, and 2. I have alwase felt the real essence in creating a nice/realistic/clean/whatever render is in the postwork. Plus theres no way to compare them as its alwase the artist behind the damn render which is the one making the render, not the rendering software. Thats like saying a pencil is doing the real work on a drawing/sketch.

And please dont start a new thread with "which ones better; a used pencil or a new pencil". Cause I assure you putting a organism togheter with a bacteria doesnt get you Conan O'Brien :shrug: right? It cant possible be right, its the same stuff, weither you go to a small room or a hallway, you alwase end up in somekind of a shelter, with possible food! I feel like the hole in my socks is making me dissy and it has nothing to do with the 8th grade food injection I got last year in Hamburg. I hope I have made some brains turn on so that we can all gather around the campfire and start singing "halelulja"

The man who says it cant be done is alwase interupted by the man who just did!


i'M On dRuGs


WOULDN'T it be great, if every new reply was a render instead of an argument?

AdamT
09-15-2005, 08:13 PM
Well, some people hate these kinds of threads and some love'em. I'm in the latter camp, as long as it stays civil. I just wish there more entries from different engines (*cough*fR-2*cough). :)

FantaBurky
09-15-2005, 08:15 PM
I love 'em :twisted: (and your avatar Adam hehe :) )

vesalus
09-15-2005, 08:39 PM
the thread's titled AR versus the rest and has as a starting file a vray render, so the "challenge" is to get as close of the vray render or to get the best realistic render so far, at least that's what i've understood...

i'm no zealot of any render engine, i'm just a C4D user who'd like to compete with the available engine against Vray render that seems to be the latest parangon in the viz biz...

and possibly without too much tweaking as sometimes clients ask for animation...

and so far i'm concern i just push some button to see what the result is, sure it need some work to get more accurate and interesting...

FantaBurky
09-15-2005, 09:04 PM
Anyway, let's see how the new Advanced Render 2.5 holds up against the competition now that we've got the new area lights, faster blurry reflections and overall speedups!


That sounds more like comparing AR 2.5 against other render engines (competition). So from that I thought whatever I thought. Allthough if what you say is true, then I think this thread is way off the initial meaning, since I only see people arguing about the engine they are using is better, and not the renders they've created.

Anyway, I got a fever so I CAN'T wait for Conan to start cause i just love it when you are like freezing in the night and its raining outside, then you cuddle you're self into the bed, embracing the pillow and recieving the warmth of the quilt, aaaaaah :drool:

vesalus
09-15-2005, 09:51 PM
thats why i say i'm no zealot to any engine nor app...

the best thing to do is to put renders side by side and you 'll see that some C4D render lack of atmosphere and are a bit greyish...

ho and concidering "put more time and increase AA or whatever sample you want to avoid the GI splotch" i 've read too many time here without seeing reel improvement, i'd really love seeing
the result.

dont get me wrong, i've seen some other room render with AR and FR2 ( including janine's one on maxon website) that are quite convincing that we'll have tool helping us heading the good way (no engine's doing the job alone thought)

flingster
09-15-2005, 09:52 PM
Cause I assure you putting a organism togheter with a bacteria doesnt get you Conan O'Brien :shrug: right?

lol...thats funny...

vs the rest... challenge...lol.
they have there place...i know what youre saying...i did learn a lot from the vray threads of old...and some more about 9.5 update...and the peoples love for their various tools... its like saying a particular make of pencil is rubbish then stabbing someone in the eye for saying it.. there are reactions and reactions and some have been way way out of order in some of these threads...comparing technology is not so bad or a little less difficult then a persons taste on a render i think...

destro80
09-15-2005, 10:02 PM
Has anyone got any info on the possibility of a Cinema 4D to VRAY connection?

It would be great to say "this is what C4D can do with VRAY", and not "this is how close we can come to matching a VRAY render".

twilight
09-15-2005, 10:34 PM
It would be great to say "this is what C4D can do with VRAY", and not "this is how close we can come to matching a VRAY render".
It's even more surprising that we keep comparing C4D to vray and not the real world (cool slogan here for maxon: "3D for the Vray!") or any other render engine.
So that makes me wonder, there must be something awfully right about vray! And the only way we'll get that into C4D is trying to understand what it is and get C4D to do it (either by improving the AR module or our own personal skills).
It would be a lot easier to do if people weren't so uptight about their current render engine... c4d, maxwell, vray, whatever. In the end we'd all benefit from better render engines, no matter which ones. I wouldn't trade modeling in C4D for any other app! As for rendering... well, i think AR2.5 is a lot better than AR2 but still a bit far from "perfect" to me.
Don't take all the people asking for a better AR for arch viz or whatever for fools just because we don't think alike or because we have different needs. I feel quite comfortable with C4D in product viz, modeling, animation, etc... and i would be 100% happy with it if that was my day to day business (which is not).

Per-Anders
09-15-2005, 10:35 PM
Guys keep it on track please. Less talk, more images.

Ph0n33z
09-15-2005, 10:43 PM
I agree with sadie....these threads always turn into flaming wars and have to be shut down.

On with the rendering!

destro80
09-15-2005, 11:00 PM
ummmm.....isn't this thread titled "AR 2.5 vs the rest"?

Peter C.
09-15-2005, 11:15 PM
Here's my test using the R9.5 demo (as my R9.5 hasn't arrived yet :sad: ):

Spotlight with Area shadow at 220% strength (orange tint)
Window illumination plane with 700% luminosity (orange tint)
Center omni without shadow at 25% strength (blue tint)

Some texture tweeking and changes

50% accuracy
difuse depth of 2
min samples of 150
max samples of 400
Best AA

Raydepth 20
Reflection depth 10
Shadow depth 20

12% sharpen filter

4 hour render on my jurassic comp.

Crappy quality due to screen grab!

Anyway, here it is, pre/post:

http://www.dez3d.com/online_stuff/kitchentest.jpg


BTW MrBraun, please post your first render with AA. My favorite so far!

Janine
09-15-2005, 11:24 PM
Now that's a nice image Peter. :)

JamesMK
09-15-2005, 11:30 PM
So, as far as FR goes, we are allowed to post renders, but not talk much about any details or features, so no questions please :D

I didn't actually do anything here, except open the file, switch on the GI with default settings, enabled the physical sky and a sky portal in the window and pressed the render button. Apparently I should have upped the sky multipliers quite a bit, but that's another story.
The artifact along the upper part of the wall just beneath the ceiling is due to the badly disconnected mesh, and FR prefers clean meshes.

That aside, I'm totally the wrong person to make interior renders in the first place, since I don't enjoy it at all and it shows in the effortless results :D The image is straight out of the renderer without any post processing.

http://web.telia.com/~u48040664/frs2render.jpg

twilight
09-15-2005, 11:36 PM
HOLY CRAP!!
Apart from the few artifacts that image looks damn nice!!

Ph0n33z
09-15-2005, 11:38 PM
HURRAY! An FR2 RENDER!

The reflections look really nice and clean, but the lighting isnt exactly the best, as you
yourself mentioned. If you could stomach doing another render with a proper setup?

I know all of us are dying to see what fr2 can do in this situation. Plus, its much faster than AR2 so it shouldnt take much time!

Ric535
09-15-2005, 11:39 PM
ah ha! a sky portal eh? hmm interesting - i think youve said too much already :scream:

nice render - got potential especially as you didnt put much effort in - Now go and put some elbow grease into it!! ;)

JamesMK
09-15-2005, 11:41 PM
If you could stomach doing another render with a proper setup?
There are other FR beta testers watching this thread right now, some of which have a much better feel for interiors, I'll leave it up to them :D



.

Ph0n33z
09-15-2005, 11:44 PM
Aww come on bro........I am sure you could produce a great render! I know u can!

twilight
09-15-2005, 11:44 PM
ah ha! a sky portal eh? hmm interesting - i think youve said too much already :scream:

Portals are common in vray and other GI engines. When you put a direct light as the sun in C4D and an area light by the window you are already creating a portal, so i guess it's not much of a revelation.
Then again i'm not a fR betatester, so i can be completely wrong!
LOL

:)

lightblitter22
09-15-2005, 11:49 PM
Nice one MK. Rendertime? Or is that top-secret at the moment? If it is, we're dealing with another CG-product-that-thinks-its-stealth-bomber, heh heh. :)

JamesMK
09-15-2005, 11:49 PM
Portals are common in vray and other GI engines. When you put a direct light as the sun in C4D and an area light by the window you are already creating a portal, so i guess it's not much of a revelation.
True dat.

Then again i'm not a fR betatester, so i can be completely wrong!
LOL:)
:shrug:

JamesMK
09-15-2005, 11:50 PM
Rendertime?
....... :shrug: