PDA

View Full Version : new cebas FR2 gallery


dann_stubbs
12-24-2005, 12:11 AM
just in case there are many users who are interested in FR2 and thought the images in the cebas FR2 gallery were lacking a bit - they updated their gallery here and have a nice variety of sections from architecture to jewelry

http://www.cebas.com/gallery/main.php

it is a very nice render engine for sure

dann

ChrisCousins
12-24-2005, 01:18 AM
Wow, what an odd gallery! Some amazing images, but some are pretty average! I guess they know what they're doing, but I really reckon they could really do with being a bit more picky :hmm:

Hopefully the new version will be more stable and we can really start to see what FR-2 can do; of course the Cinema version is very new, but some of the examples so far - especially the shaders which is what I was most interested in - are a little bit worrying!

Cheers - C

just in case there are many users who are interested in FR2 and thought the images in the cebas FR2 gallery were lacking a bit - they updated their gallery here and have a nice variety of sections from architecture to jewelry

http://www.cebas.com/gallery/main.php

it is a very nice render engine for sure

dann

JoelOtron
12-26-2005, 03:06 PM
Yeah--I would agree--it is an "odd" gallery. Looks like everyone is still coming to grips with it---but it shows good potential.I liked seeing interface shots alongside of the renders, as was the case with the image that shows a reflection falloff gradient as it affects the render. I notice that as was true with the initial mw renders we see that concrete slab material getting a lot of use. I suppose thats an easy one to slap on.

Nice to see some familiar faces in there too. Still have it slated as an '06 purchase.

ThirdEye
12-27-2005, 02:25 PM
Keep in mind that gallery includes many stage-1 images and prolly many stage-0 images too, the quality of stage-2 is much higher.

paulselhi
12-29-2005, 07:28 AM
Having a look at some of the renders i found a good example of one of my main peeves with many GI interiors, have a look at this

http://www.cebas.com/gallery/v/cebas+Software/cinema4d/bro07_fr.jpg.html

Now i am sure the artist will defend it with "artistic liscence" but my guess is that this was supposed to ne photoreal, i see so many interiors like this. Look with this amount of sunlight from such a large window the room would be flooded with light, you would barely be able to notice any shadows under the table

Just take a look at your own room on a sunny day with a reasonable sized window

Jorge Arango
12-29-2005, 01:45 PM
... but my guess is that this was supposed to ne photoreal, ...

Just take a look at your own room on a sunny day with a reasonable sized window

Yes, but take a photograph of the room in which the blue of the sky is not clipped and you might get something similar to the rendering.


Jorge Arango

paulselhi
12-29-2005, 03:01 PM
not sure what you mean by "clipped", thing is i don't think you could get such darkness in a room like that AND have the shadows that strong, the amount of light causing these shadows would in itself create enough GI/Rad to brighten up most occluded areas

In my room on a suny day even in the nooks and crannies there is plenty of radiated lighting, you have to burrow right down under a chest of draws to find anything really dark ..hmm lets not dwell on that thought too long !!!

ThirdEye
12-29-2005, 03:23 PM
Having a look at some of the renders i found a good example of one of my main peeves with many GI interiors, have a look at this

http://www.cebas.com/gallery/v/cebas+Software/cinema4d/bro07_fr.jpg.html

Now i am sure the artist will defend it with "artistic liscence" but my guess is that this was supposed to ne photoreal, i see so many interiors like this. Look with this amount of sunlight from such a large window the room would be flooded with light, you would barely be able to notice any shadows under the table

Just take a look at your own room on a sunny day with a reasonable sized window

No that's simply wrong. The human eye is a LDR organ which needs to adjust itself to the light inside the room, so obviously the light outside will look a lot brighter. Look at this one for example http://www.cti.gr/gr_v/atypi_synodos/images/room/Room-School%20Lab.JPG

Jorge Arango
12-29-2005, 03:36 PM
not sure what you mean by "clipped", thing is i don't think you could get such darkness in a room like that AND have the shadows that strong, the amount of light causing these shadows would in itself create enough GI/Rad to brighten up most occluded areas



What I mean is that if you adjust the (photographic) exposure to brighten the room, the brightnes of the sky would go beyond what is recordable by the film/sensor and would be recorded white.


In my room on a suny day even in the nooks and crannies there is plenty of radiated lighting, you have to burrow right down under a chest of draws to find anything really dark

Maybe your room has bright white walls unlike the one in the renderer?


..hmm lets not dwell on that thought too long !!!

OK :)

Jorge Arango

paulselhi
12-29-2005, 05:55 PM
No that's simply wrong. The human eye is a LDR organ which needs to adjust itself to the light inside the room, so obviously the light outside will look a lot brighter. Look at this one for example http://www.cti.gr/gr_v/atypi_synodos/images/room/Room-School%20Lab.JPG

this image shows the inferiority of a camera lens to the human eye, a human would not see such darkness below the desks with so much light coming into the room, granted it is difficult to say if the oustdie is really that bright or if it is an exposure thing but i doubt very much if the ambient light would allow such shadowing

of course at the end of the day you have to decide do i want a photoreal render with bad exposure, a photreal render done by a pro who knows how to do all the exposure stuff or a "eye" real render

I would have thought that most archviz photographers are trying for a hunan eye picture in which case a good GI render should aim towards this look but of course it is all very subjective

ThirdEye
12-29-2005, 07:24 PM
My opinion is we should go for photorealism, not for eye-realism, otherwise you'd have to forget dof, flares, grain and so on. Also i don't think that's an example of bad exposure, it's just the way cams work.

Jorge Arango
12-29-2005, 07:54 PM
My opinion is we should go for photorealism, not for eye-realism, otherwise you'd have to forget dof, flares, grain and so on. Also i don't think that's an example of bad exposure, it's just the way cams work.

Photorealism has been a paradigm in CG. That's allright with me since many of the CG images are to be composited with photographs (still or moving). Also, from an academic point of view, photographs are flat, have a limited dynamic range and are credible, so it's natural to compare CG images to them.

But in the end, I think 3d imaging should go beyond photorealism and not be bound by the limitations of the photographic medium. For instance, let's take the image cited by Paul; in real life, it would be difficult for a photographer to show a well illuminated interior *and* a sky full of clouds. He would need very powerfull lights or wait until dusk. With 3d this is no problem and it's credible since that's the way the eye sees the scene.

But of course, DOF, flares and even grain are usefull in many cases; even if us photographers spent our lives fighting against them.

Just my thoughts... ;)


Jorge Arango

CGTalk Moderation
12-29-2005, 07:54 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.