PDA

View Full Version : Maxwell vs Nikon O_o


Ubik
04-26-2006, 05:16 AM
Incredible. If these guys workout speed issues....sky is the limit.

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14254

albedo4800hp
04-26-2006, 07:50 AM
phpBB : Critical Error

Could not connect to the database

But thanks for the link anyway!

sunmade
04-26-2006, 08:26 AM
could anybody please shed some light on this, because the maxwell forum is down...AGAIN ;-(

what is it about?

cheers

Sniffet
04-26-2006, 08:50 AM
Probably because maxwell 1.0 is supposed to be released today, so everyone keeps hammering their forum, trying to see if they released it or not.. Oh well.

Walli
04-26-2006, 08:54 AM
they build a real Cornell box and photographed with a Nikon. Then they recreated this realworld scenario and rendered with Maxwell.
And now itīs up to you to compare the render with real world ;-)

sunmade
04-26-2006, 08:55 AM
oh the cornell box thingy.

yeah, looks cool.

danylyon
04-26-2006, 09:44 AM
still had it in my cache:

Dear Friends,

This is an example of how Maxwell 1.0 reproduces the reality using few real-world parameters and reducing the setup time dramatically. In this case I (Jose-Martin "jomaga") made some photos of a Cornell box (see below) and tried to reproduce it in Maxwell.

Once I had the geometry ready I spent only 15 minutes setting up the lighting conditions. First for the emitters I used the same real values (watts, temperature, lumen and efficacy). Then I created the wall materials using the same reflectance values that I obtained with the help of my luxometer. Finally I set the camera using the same real values of fStop, ISO and shutter that I used when I took the photo.

I needed some tests to adjust the red and green colors but in fact I got a very good image soon without needing to tweak or guess values for hours. I think the use of real-world values is one top end benefit of Maxwell for an architect like me.

Best regards,
A-Team LaboratoriesŪ

westiemad
04-26-2006, 12:02 PM
brilliant.

ThomasMahler
04-26-2006, 12:12 PM
Yeah, nice.

Now, make it faster!

Doctor Nick
04-26-2006, 12:22 PM
where are the glass cylinder and sphere in the box? I guess they weren't set up when you took that photo right?

lazzhar
04-26-2006, 12:22 PM
Looks cool. they still have some grain tho.

edit: the forum is up again.

albedo4800hp
04-26-2006, 01:17 PM
Clear difference! What is the problem you may ask! Obvious Maxwell looks way too clean, too perfect as with most CG renders.

Gonzomuse
04-26-2006, 01:26 PM
Oh yeah, i hate that too perfect thing.. bane of my life!! :-P (sarcasm bty).

Its certainly easier to dirty something up than clean something up, I've never considered maxwell to be too clean especially given the still apparent grain.

Very impressive render though. I could'nt see a render time for this, how long?

P_T
04-26-2006, 01:49 PM
Apart from the perfect edges and coloration, it's almost identical. Gonna show this to the boss tomorrow.

BTW, is 1.0 released today or is it delayed again?

Sonk
04-26-2006, 01:58 PM
Apart from the perfect edges and coloration, it's almost identical. Gonna show this to the boss tomorrow.

BTW, is 1.0 released today or is it delayed again?

Even if its delay again, theres nothing anyone can do about it..NextLimit has their money :P

Hopefully its release today, we'll find out soon enough. They said normal mapping is on the feature list, but i havent seen any renders of normal map yet?

Fahrija
04-26-2006, 02:06 PM
Iīm impressed.


.

Chris-TC
04-26-2006, 02:37 PM
Clear difference! What is the problem you may ask! Obvious Maxwell looks way too clean, too perfect as with most CG renders.

Oh come on, this is ridiculous.

Actually, when I first looked at the two images I did not scroll down to the part where it says which is the photo and which is the render.
I thought I could easily figure out which is which but funny enough I didn't. I thought the photo was the render and vice versa.

Yes, the right box has an imperfection in the photo but for example the lamp looked more organic to me in the render. Frankly, I just couldn't tell and that is quite impressive.

Saturn
04-26-2006, 02:43 PM
yup nikon won by K.O

You should check the true cornell box and the image they rendered 10 years ago. Still better than any cornell box render attempt.

Mike Pauza
04-26-2006, 03:07 PM
Really cool idea Jose!!!

If you do the experiment again you might match the temperature of your fluorescent physical light a bit better. Also, are you rendering in a high enough color depth cause the render's whites seem a bit muted. Like other's have said a little more out of focus blur would be nice too, as well as a little bloom from the light, and maybe also play with the surface parameters a bit (like specularity), add some grime, etc.

Show us more. :) -Mike Pauza

P_T
04-26-2006, 04:09 PM
Even if its delay again, theres nothing anyone can do about it..NextLimit has their money :P

Hopefully its release today, we'll find out soon enough. They said normal mapping is on the feature list, but i havent seen any renders of normal map yet?

Well they ain't got my boss' money just yet, not till it's released with at least one patch/service pack/update. :p

Saturn, got link to the picture you're talking about?

yinako
04-26-2006, 04:26 PM
and whats the render time?

and how do I know they didn't use photoshop to fixup?

jomaga
04-26-2006, 04:38 PM
Hi guys!

This is my fisrt post here!
I'm trying to make this test as accurate as possible, but there are a lot of variables I can't control. I have measured the reflectance of white, red and green walls, but whit my digital luxometer, and as there are small surfaces, it's not possible to match them perfectly. Emitter have 6500K of color temperature, 27W and 1700lumen and I set the same in maxwell. Glass objects have 97% of transmittance and Nd=1.15, as usual in this kind of glass. Rendertime was over 10h (1500x900), but I left all night rendering, so, probably could be shorter.
The only postprocessing I've made is a slight blur filter in the rendered image to macth better the blurryness of the photo. Lamp glow is created by maxwell, not postprocessed.
Thanks for your comments!

RockinAkin
04-26-2006, 05:03 PM
Yeah, theres no mention of render time anywhere... can anyone shed some light on this? (no pun).

It's impressive, just as long as it didn't take something like 3 days to render.

CupOWonton
04-26-2006, 05:10 PM
It probably would take 24 hours on a single machine to produce that image at that size with that clarity out of Maxwell. (Im being rather generous with that number)
Theres no way to "Fix the speed issue" Maxwell is based on the slowest method of calculation. Which is ultimately flawed because it doesnt take into account other properties of light. Its an old equation that was abandoned years ago when people realised it just wasnt an acceptable way to produce light calculations for 3d. Now theyre adding in other parts to fake sertain effects they need to convince people theyre somehow 'innovating' an outdated equation.
The only way to 'fix' this said speed issue, is to get about 10X+ more computers than what you already have, + several more lisences, that'll bring the speed up, for a massive, unbearable cost that just isnt worth it. And even then, You could do better to buy software that comes with an unlimited render lisence - ala :Vray and render things in fractons of the time it takes Maxwell.
They need some pro's to get a copy of that MW clornell box, make comparative material settings, and render it in Vray to show off.

jomaga
04-26-2006, 05:15 PM
Btw, rendered in a single P4 D830 3.0GHz.

ulb
04-26-2006, 05:26 PM
It probably would take 24 hours on a single machine to produce that image at that size with that clarity out of Maxwell. (Im being rather generous with that number)
Theres no way to "Fix the speed issue" Maxwell is based on the slowest method of calculation. Which is ultimately flawed because it doesnt take into account other properties of light. Its an old equation that was abandoned years ago when people realised it just wasnt an acceptable way to produce light calculations for 3d. Now theyre adding in other parts to fake sertain effects they need to convince people theyre somehow 'innovating' an outdated equation.
The only way to 'fix' this said speed issue, is to get about 10X+ more computers than what you already have, + several more lisences, that'll bring the speed up, for a massive, unbearable cost that just isnt worth it. And even then, You could do better to buy software that comes with an unlimited render lisence - ala :Vray and render things in fractons of the time it takes Maxwell.
They need some pro's to get a copy of that MW clornell box, make comparative material settings, and render it in Vray to show off.
you're pathetic. I really wonder why you're allways bitching maxwell. i could use it and i would have spend years to get the same quality with other renderers. the time it took to get good results wasn't bad at all, and maxwell was actually really fast for exterior scenes.

i just hope they will release 1.0 today, or they will show how unable they are to learn from past experiences.

danylyon
04-26-2006, 05:34 PM
and how do I know they didn't use photoshop to fixup?

Quote from the maxwell forum: "I have only applied a slight blur filter from PS, because rendered image was too sharp compared to the photo. No other postproccesing is done"

tikal26
04-26-2006, 05:35 PM
Jomaga said that he was not sure how long it took, but he left it overnight and it was this are his specs
10h en mi P4 D830 3.0GHz 2Gb ram
1500x900 pixels
He actually said no more than 10h

so it was definetly less than 24 hours, but still alot of time. I think.

Wontong- I am sure that Vray would be faster after you call in the experts. The nice thing about maxwell is that noobies like me don't have to worry about sliders, photons and all that kind of stuff. It would be nice to do a vray render thouhg and compare it, but we should also comapre the render times.

danylyon
04-26-2006, 05:35 PM
It probably would take 24 hours on a single machine to produce that image at that size with that clarity out of Maxwell. (Im being rather generous with that number)

Quote from the Maxwell Forum: "I donīt remember exactly the rendertime of the first one, but the closest one is a slice of a complete 1500x900 render, left all night, near 10h in my P4 D830 3.0GHz."

tikal, you beat me ;-)

yolao
04-26-2006, 05:38 PM
i will like to see a render of a photoreal human, to see things like the SSS skin, reflection on the eyes...hair, etc..

CupOWonton
04-26-2006, 05:47 PM
Quote from the Maxwell Forum: "I donīt remember exactly the rendertime of the first one, but the closest one is a slice of a complete 1500x900 render, left all night, near 10h in my P4 D830 3.0GHz."

tikal, you beat me ;-)

1500x900? Oh, I thought it was double that area size. Pretty much what I would expect though.

And yes, 10H for 1 frame is a very very long time.

ulb, here's a clue. ALL GI renderers are faster when its outside. Maxwell, Vray, Mental Ray. Theres less contained bounces in that instance, they hit a few times, then they bounce out of the sceen. Also, the statement of "i could use it and i would have spend years to get the same quality with other renderers" is more or less just insulting your own intelligence. Oh no, Irradiance samples, photon ammounts, QMC, final gather, such horrible words with sample numbers one may have to think about.

albedo4800hp
04-26-2006, 06:03 PM
Oh come on, this is ridiculous.

Actually, when I first looked at the two images I did not scroll down to the part where it says which is the photo and which is the render.
I thought I could easily figure out which is which but funny enough I didn't. I thought the photo was the render and vice versa.

Yes, the right box has an imperfection in the photo but for example the lamp looked more organic to me in the render. Frankly, I just couldn't tell and that is quite impressive.

No offence but I think you should get a pair of glasses, there are clear difference look at the shadows especially below the boxes. There is a major difference in the shadows. In MW they look to clean and sharp compared to the one in the Photo. Also the edges of the boxes except that the one is slight busted look different. And that's only taken with a Camera when you would look the scenes through your real eyes it would look different again. Photorealism can not be the point to stop we have to go beyond that to call it REAL!

tikal26
04-26-2006, 06:03 PM
Maybe is a insult to my own intellignece, but now I am really wondering how easy and reallistic is to test others renders. I have mental ray, but don't know how to use it to its full capacity, but if you want wontong we can do similar tes and you can use whatever render you are skilled with and then we can compare it. I can use Maxwell and Mental ray and you can use whateve ryou have and then we can compare just for fun. I think that it would be fun. What you say?

ulb
04-26-2006, 06:15 PM
1500x900? Oh, I thought it was double that area size. Pretty much what I would expect though.

And yes, 10H for 1 frame is a very very long time.

ulb, here's a clue. ALL GI renderers are faster when its outside. Maxwell, Vray, Mental Ray. Theres less contained bounces in that instance, they hit a few times, then they bounce out of the sceen. Also, the statement of "i could use it and i would have spend years to get the same quality with other renderers" is more or less just insulting your own intelligence. Oh no, Irradiance samples, photon ammounts, QMC, final gather, such horrible words with sample numbers one may have to think about.
i use mental ray and sometimes vray and it is clear that a true photorealistic render is easier to get with maxwell, and the quality is very likely to be a lot better with it. this is a fact, i don't say vray or mental ray aren't good, but if i want a photorealistic still, maxwell will allways be my choice. i think all the galleries in maxwell's site and forum show that it is useable and that the time issue is not so problematic, and the pics shown are imho better than the ones i can see on vray's site.

besides that i'm really perplexed about how next limit did handle the releases dates and information to the customers. they really should learn from luxology on that side. But i'm sure maxwell will end up being a truly awesome product..

ulb
04-26-2006, 06:17 PM
Maybe is a insult to my own intellignece, but now I am really wondering how easy and reallistic is to test others renders. I have mental ray, but don't know how to use it to its full capacity, but if you want wontong we can do similar tes and you can use whatever render you are skilled with and then we can compare it. I can use Maxwell and Mental ray and you can use whateve ryou have and then we can compare just for fun. I think that it would be fun. What you say?
yeah that would be fun! :)

Pin_pal
04-26-2006, 06:17 PM
Well the fact that he only took 15 minutes to setup is impressive. No photo, bounce, etc, etc, tweeking that one might have to do with other renderers. That is huge.

GoranNF
04-26-2006, 06:53 PM
Those renders are very realistic.I've heard that the rendertimes are very long with maxwell.

Pixlmonky
04-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Just some quick math (some number arbitrary)

100 frames rendered

Renderer A...
15 min setup
5 hours a frame
500 hours and 15 min of render time

Renderer B
5 hours setup
1 hour a frame
105 hours of render time

Who cares that it takes 15 min to set up? (I know...just throwing that out there to think about)

My questions....
- Will added accent lights (rim/kicker/highlight/etc..) screw up and/or add to the calculation? A good render is more than just "sterile GI".
- How easy is it to render passes so I do not have to rerender 500 hours so I can change a small peice/part for a client?


Something to think of...
Would feature animations need something like this (photorealism)? Pixar/Dreamworks and the others don't generally use it and their lighting in more aesthetically pleasing. Would effects work need it? Because we are working with CG, if it looks wrong, it is wrong, even if it is physically accurate. It only has to look right. So for effects work, simple setups (and faster render times) can be used in a large amount of cases (from what I have heard from friends in the industry).
The render looks great and I am very impressed. I can just see people flocking to it because it is "easy to set up" and it is "physically accurate". I already see demo tapes where students say they are lighting artists when you can clearly see they just turned on "GI" or "Ginal Gather". It's all about mood and aesthetics.

Chris-TC
04-26-2006, 07:44 PM
No offence but I think you should get a pair of glasses, there are clear difference look at the shadows especially below the boxes. There is a major difference in the shadows. In MW they look to clean and sharp compared to the one in the Photo.

You don't need to point out the differences to me.
Have you even read what I wrote? I said that I couldn't tell which one was the photo before I read the subtitles.
Of course you see differences but as long as you don't know which one is which it's pretty much impossible to tell which one's the photo. The only real hint is the imperfection on the box.

But the plastic part of the lamp looks more CG in the photo, as crazy as it sounds. And that's what threw me off.

CupOWonton
04-26-2006, 09:00 PM
i use mental ray and sometimes vray and it is clear that a true photorealistic render is easier to get with maxwell, and the quality is very likely to be a lot better with it. this is a fact, i don't say vray or mental ray aren't good, but if i want a photorealistic still, maxwell will allways be my choice. i think all the galleries in maxwell's site and forum show that it is useable and that the time issue is not so problematic, and the pics shown are imho better than the ones i can see on vray's site.

besides that i'm really perplexed about how next limit did handle the releases dates and information to the customers. they really should learn from luxology on that side. But i'm sure maxwell will end up being a truly awesome product..

Thats the hillarious thing. Maxwell still isnt PHOTOREALISTIC. Its calculating only a few parts of what light actualy does. Its not a perfect set of equations.
Its just UNBIASED in its rays. What theyve done is given you 1 way to render, its all pre-set to do 1 thing, which is to take the longest time calculating light bounces and the only real limitation being what time you give it to render.

All the effects you get with MW, can/have been visualy faked before and when its all rendered out, the bias methods are cleaner, easier to work with, and a lot more practical, but still just as 'photo realistic' to the eye as an MW render.

The only things most other renders seem to lack is a faked dispersion, which can be calculated for acuracy upon each re-dispersion if it passes through several refractive surfaces. A lot of people realy just dont use or even need that. Its not something visualy seen/noticed naturaly unless incredibly up close, or on a grand scale. Most people dont have a miniature sun-in-a-can inside their homes casting pure light through clean cut crystal prisms in their studio's.

As for time not being problematic. Its absurd.
Stated above is a 'simple math' idea of what it takes between a bias and unbias renderer.
The cost, both monitary and in time is much greater wile using maxwell than if using a bias renderer. If someone who KNOWS maxwell and KNOWS vray does a render on both the Vray would come out looking just as -photo realistic- but faster. The setup time on Vray may (MAY) take a bit longer, which I doubt because one would alwayse do test renders before a final, whereas the render time will be dramaticly smaller.
In conrast, people assume Maxwell setup may be shorter, a 5-10hr render frame vs a 10-20minute render frame is a HUGE difference. Youre talking hundreds to thousands of hours longer in render time.

And ya know what, the worst part of it all, isnt even Maxwell. Its a solid attempt at a program. Its the people RUNNING THE SHOW over there at NL that should be tossed in jail for all the extreme hyped advertising and slimey manuvers theyve pulled on their customers. On that note, I noticed that the user forum is currently down after many disgruntled posts about MW not being released yet on its due date sprung up. One might think NL was trying to keep people from complaining as they alwayse do. Though Im sure it MUST be a forum upgrade of some kind to celebrate the iminant release of their product.. right?

Andyman
04-26-2006, 09:18 PM
Goodness, all this huffing and puffing over a [comparatively] stupid renderer. Why don't we all just go postal because the lawn is going to need mowing soon.

tikal26
04-26-2006, 09:27 PM
So first their forum went downs, then the maxwell site and now I can't even access the next limit site. SO they might be putting a new face for the release or they decide to finally run a way with our money

CupOWonton
04-26-2006, 10:07 PM
Goodness, all this huffing and puffing over a [comparatively] stupid renderer. Why don't we all just go postal because the lawn is going to need mowing soon.
Coincidentaly my lawnmower died =_=

jomaga
04-26-2006, 11:18 PM
Hi guys!

This is my fisrt post here!
I'm trying to make this test as accurate as possible, but there are a lot of variables I can't control. I have measured the reflectance of white, red and green walls, but whit my digital luxometer, and as there are small surfaces, it's not possible to match them perfectly. Emitter have 6500K of color temperature, 27W and 1700lumen and I set the same in maxwell. Glass objects have 97% of transmittance and Nd=1.15, as usual in this kind of glass. Rendertime was over 10h (1500x900), but I left all night rendering, so, probably could be shorter.
The only postprocessing I've made is a slight blur filter in the rendered image to macth better the blurryness of the photo. Lamp glow is created by maxwell, not postprocessed.
Thanks for your comments!

Hi again, as a new member, my post have been delayed some hours, so I'm quoting myself at the end of the topic :)
Thanks again for your possitive comments!

P_T
04-26-2006, 11:29 PM
Wonton, you said you don't hate the product only NL for the way they handle their customers in the other thread right?

If we have a thread discussing NL then by all means, rant all you want but it seems like you still bitch about Maxwell, saying the same thing over and over again. Yes, MR and VRay are faster, I think noone's denying that.

Personally I'd rather let the PC to render for 20 hours than having myself waste several hours tweaking settings, add an extra PC and that time should be halved, enough time from the when I leave the office till the next morning.

Think of it like this, for an 8 hours workday, 15 mins of setup and moving on to doing something else is preferable than wasting 4 hours tweaking settings to get the same quality as Maxwell.

Besides, my boss didn't pay me to be a TD or a lighter, he pays me to build 3D representation for their architect design so in that respect he's saving money when I can work more on something he paid me for.

If I was a freelancer, I'd be saving a lot of time too. If I charge client for 2 days work and setup for 15 mins instead of 4 hours, I can watch a LOTR extended version DVD while it renders or go out with my gf while the client is paying me for my PC's grunt work.

anakinbrego
04-27-2006, 12:01 AM
P_T I was waiting for someone to say what you just said! :thumbsup:

beaker
04-27-2006, 01:33 AM
Personally I'd rather let the PC to render for 20 hours than having myself waste several hours tweaking settings, add an extra PC and that time should be halved, enough time from the when I leave the office till the next morning.

Think of it like this, for an 8 hours workday, 15 mins of setup and moving on to doing something else is preferable than wasting 4 hours tweaking settings to get the same quality as Maxwell. CupOWonton: some people must live in a bubble, because I've never heard of a clients or supervisor that doesn't ask for changes which require 5-6+ rerenders. :)

Also he must be talking about single frames, because a animation would be suicide with Maxwell. The extra work in setup using another renderer would pay off in a day.

Pixlmonky
04-27-2006, 01:35 AM
Besides, my boss didn't pay me to be a TD or a lighter, he pays me to build 3D representation for their architect design so in that respect he's saving money when I can work more on something he paid me for.

If I was a freelancer, I'd be saving a lot of time too. If I charge client for 2 days work and setup for 15 mins instead of 4 hours, I can watch a LOTR extended version DVD while it renders or go out with my gf while the client is paying me for my PC's grunt work.


What about those who are paid to be a TD or a lighter? Does it matter? Guess it depends on the pipeline.

I do freelance and I do love the ability to pre-setup scenes (taking time when I have it) and do quick changes when a client changes their mind last minute (as they always do). I can render changes pretty quickly. I don't need to tell them how quick I can do changes. Normally I am also working on other changes they made rendering the previous changes.

CupOWonton
04-27-2006, 01:58 AM
Think of it like this, for an 8 hours workday, 15 mins of setup and moving on to doing something else is preferable than wasting 4 hours tweaking settings to get the same quality as Maxwell. .
Only works with non animators realy.

angel
04-27-2006, 02:03 AM
Even tho I think it looks pretty good and would love to play with it right now it is just that, a toy, seems kinda impractical at the moment. Hopefully the developers will work on the render times in future versions.

CupOWonton
04-27-2006, 02:09 AM
CupOWonton: some people must live in a bubble, because I've never heard of a clients or supervisor that doesn't ask for changes which require 5-6+ rerenders. :)

Also he must be talking about single frames, because a animation would be suicide with Maxwell. The extra work in setup using another renderer would pay off in a day.

X_X no kidding. The responses I was so use to hearing.
"Make that lighter" -Ok, easy fix in photoshop-
"That color is wrong" -good thing I can composite in AE and Premiere-
"Change out the furniture, including the lamps" - YOU $%&*%^!
"Cerramic Tile with native american patterns instead of wood and in a different color" - "Dieeeee!"
"The color is still wrong" - FIX YOUR MONITOR, LADY!

And with the freaking time frames they all want it done in, its insane to try and think of sitting there and waiting 10 hours, they'd drop the freakin contract if it ever took us that long to make a change to a render.
Hell, even with single frames, when youre rendering images at 30inX20in X300dpi for large banners theres just no way to wait for that. I was surprised half the time if I could even manage the resources to render that large within a night on only a handfull of outdated comps without crashing them.

Some clients are either stupid, or just plain evil.

Myliobatidae
04-27-2006, 02:09 AM
I don't find lighting a scene to be that difficult, its the texturing that slows me down, advanced texturing will be just as hard as it ever was, unless they're gonna have 10,000 preset materials built into maxwell, I mean how do you know exactly how much reflectance 3 coats of laquer on a cherry table has, you don't, you have to tweak it till it looks good...

Every situation is going to have these problems, they're not going to be cornell boxes...

And don't forget UV mapping, you can't skip over that one...

So all in all, I like the idea, however I doubt its going to be as easy as some might be thinking....

Kgen
04-27-2006, 03:12 AM
Looks great, but no one writes a photorealistic renderer without first getting the cornell box right so I'm not sure if this is any indication of how good maxwell really is.

Though i look forward to something more complex and elaborate (in terms of lighting and scenes)!

P_T
04-27-2006, 03:23 AM
CupOWonton: some people must live in a bubble, because I've never heard of a clients or supervisor that doesn't ask for changes which require 5-6+ rerenders. :)

Also he must be talking about single frames, because a animation would be suicide with Maxwell. The extra work in setup using another renderer would pay off in a day.

CupOfWonton: I'm glad there are people who can use their brain to figure out that I wasn't talking about animation. Although, I don't remember saying I won't do smaller rez, lower quality renders for preview before doing the final high quality render.

I work for a small architectural company where most of the clients only care about selling their residential properties. They don't care if there's not enough light bounce near the window, they just want their house look pretty in the marketing pamphlet. Show them a maxwell render of their house and they'll be like "WOW that looks so real, it's like a photo".

If he calls the company I work in and the market where it's operating a bubble then I guess I do live in a bubble.

Look, I'm not a fanboy, as I mentioned earlier I'm waiting for it to be released with a patch/update/whatever and I'll let my boss decide if he thinks it's worth buying. I was just trying to say that Maxwell still has its uses otherwise noone would've bought it and a lot of them seem to be happy with it, apart from the ones getting rough treatment from NL.

yinako
04-27-2006, 04:19 AM
15min to setup, where the fun in that?

Will this be the poser of rendering?


Even if it is I'm sure theres a market for it.

albedo4800hp
04-27-2006, 07:47 AM
You don't need to point out the differences to me.
Have you even read what I wrote? I said that I couldn't tell which one was the photo before I read the subtitles.


Yes I did and my original statement still holds, even without subtitles for me it would have been easy to tell! People just spend too much time in front of their screen if you ask me! I think you all should get out more and see reality as beautiful as it is. :)

alexyork
04-27-2006, 08:07 AM
15min to setup, where the fun in that?

Will this be the poser of rendering?


Even if it is I'm sure theres a market for it.

something a lot of people forget is that it's still not a 1-stop rendering solution, ie. hit render and you're done. just like with any other renderer you still usually (almost always) have to work up the image later in post. having a short setup time for a scene is greatly beneficial when it comes to post work, since you're half way there already, despite the long rendertimes.

as an architectural artist, the render is very much the beginning of the image production process. in many cases my time in 3D compared to my time in post can be maybe 20%. if maxwell can help me get to a more finished state more quickly, then overall I save time, allowing me to put more into post, or to work on another job entirely.

so you have three, not two, stages here, as always: setup, rendertime, post. the first and last are greatly reduced with maxwell, at the detriment of the second. but the overall time spent to produce an image can be far less with maxwell.

the only efficiency issue I have had with maxwell is trying to do small region updates, which is a fact of life in production and that's not something maxwell lends itself to for obvious reasons.

LarsSon
04-27-2006, 08:25 AM
I'm going to kill me, if you think that animation with Maxwell is suicide. :rolleyes:

Pal resolution frames from exterior scene will take 15 min to 1 hour with my workstation.
With licenses and renderfarm i have, it's not impossible at all. I can render about 20
photorealistic frames / 1 hour. This is what i have been waiting so long.

For me this is the best solution to render animation with full gi. No flickering or artifacts.


-LarsSon

Chris-TC
04-27-2006, 12:05 PM
Yes I did and my original statement still holds, even without subtitles for me it would have been easy to tell!

Of course it would have been easy for you to tell. You da man! :buttrock:

playmesumch00ns
04-27-2006, 04:53 PM
People seem to spend a lot of time justifying maxwell based on the idea that the time you save tweaking settings can be spent rendering a photoreal image.

The most successful work I have seen produced with Maxwell is that with a lot of glass/chrome/matte surfaces (i.e. things that are well represented with "default" shader settings. There is a lor of work in the gallery where the materials don't really look like anything at all, and certainly not what they're supposed to represent.

I think your scenes will still require some tweaking.

Saturn
04-27-2006, 05:28 PM
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/online/box/compare.html

Poisen
04-27-2006, 06:21 PM
Am i missing something?

i looked at the 2 photos, and it wasent exactly "hard" to spot the render over the photo.
the blurry grainy one with the blown edges for sure isnt the photo.
im not a maxwell "anti" by any means, but give me a break already...

that and what was the render time? ;\
tweak time 15 minutes, render time 30+ hours?
tweak time 4 hours, render time 3 hours still wins..
just my 2 cents.

CupOWonton
04-27-2006, 06:33 PM
Poisen, apparently some peoples explination is they get to charge someone more for their inability to render speedily with the same ammount of realism through the use of actual skill.
The longer it takes it to render over time, the more they get to charge.

Rick Flowers
04-27-2006, 08:04 PM
maxwell is great for rich boys with render farms and little time on their hands. (lazy)

Sorry. I'm not "maxwell-anti" either... they are taking a good step in the right direction-
just, I'm too poor for that much money and time. =)

Money = render software + faster hardware
time = render time

trthing
04-27-2006, 09:19 PM
I can buy it for fun if:

1. Price gets around 500 bucks

2. It gets a stable, featured, production ready, version 2 soon.

Dear Lord: those renders are beautiful...

CHRiTTeR
04-28-2006, 12:21 AM
Wow, look!!! It does a cornell box!!! Lol :banghead:

9 hrs for a stupid cornell box, you've got to be kidding me.
And the difference is clearly there.

Other renderers can give you the same result, much faster


Maxwell can do nice stuff and its quite accurate and if you got the time I guess its cool...
I'm sure it has its use for some things (but certainly not animation) but common dont try to impress with a cornell box, that's sooooo ... errr ...90's ;)

harmonic01
04-30-2006, 12:03 AM
I totally agree with CHRiTTeR. Cornell box? Pfff, well that was a waste of time. Other rendering engines might not give exactlyt he same result in 15 minutes lighting setup, but they will surely look great and just as convincing. Oh and much faster too. :)
Maybe when processors will be fast enough to actually use Maxwell, spending little time setting up lights might be a cool thing. But by then other rendering engines will evolve as well. Speed + convincing results = better than Slow + accurate results.
Just my 2 cents. :shrug:

JohnnyRandom
04-30-2006, 12:52 AM
Interesting thread...

Alot of valid points but most seem to fall on the line of time and cost.

I hate to say this but I'm glad for all the bitching that is going on about this here and at the maxwell forum. NL was quite nice enough to give everyone who purchased alpha/beta license a free license for every license purchased.

Well I tell ya hmmm $500 for two licenses that was an unexpected surprise. Well there you go you just knocked you render time in half (of course for those without a renderfarm, the purchase of a couple $200 surplus p4 pc's, which either way with any render engine will always help)

As for lighting setup m~r is sweet define emitter objects enable multilight, render them all and studio gives you the ablitiy to adjust the brightness of all/any of the lights after the render is complete. Nice feature IMO. Just thought I would share that.

All arguments aside there is a time and a place for every render engine. So whichever you choose to use at any given time is always dependant upon what type of work you are doing (as if that statement wasn't obvious O_o )

Anyway just a different way of doing things thats all...

cpan
04-30-2006, 07:26 AM
9 hrs for a stupid cornell box, you've got to be kidding me.
And the difference is clearly there.

Other renderers can give you the same result, much faster

the cornell box is the best setup to show light propagation through scene. And when i first looked at the two pics i could hardly say wich one is the real one (ofcourse the bumpy, irregulary surfaces made the difference).

Take a look on the maxwell forum / gallery if this cornell box didn't convince you ehe :rolleyes:

kursad_pileksuz
04-30-2006, 07:59 AM
I do not think that point is faking the original cornell box photo, point is mimicing physically correct ligth model. I am sure it is possible to create a cornell box looking render even without having illumination etc, but that is not the point. If they were careful about modelling little more, and if they did not apply blur all over the rendered image, it would have been harder to recognize the photo.

mverta
04-30-2006, 08:12 AM
Maxwell is often criticized by people who've never so much as touched it, parrotting posts they read on other forums and making sweeping proclamations about what it can and can't do.

I just finished a series of hi-res renderings for the upcoming Star Wars Complete Visual Dictionary, and Maxwell was the clear choice for my rendering platform. It provided a photo-realism edge I wouldn't get in any other package; especially given the extremely short deadline. The render times were not especially egregious - 6 hours for the main 11x17 shots, noise-free, comprised of 4.8 million polys+, 6 diffuse light sources, 20 "display" light sources, full-GI, caustics, physically-accurate DOF and glare, and perfect anti-aliasing.

I spent no time tweaking the lights or the GI; or the DOF or the anti-aliasing for that matter - they were accurate from the moment I began the project. The material set in Maxwell is flexible, powerful and most importantly, predictable. I would never have been able to dial in 600+ textures in the time alotted, if not for being able to count on the materials to behave in a physcially-accurate way, saving me hundreds of hours of tweaking time which I didn't have.

Words are words; and words without knowledge are a waste of bandwidth. The true value of a piece of rendering software is measured by whether it increases your productivity, and improves the quality of your work.

Maxwell has done precisely that - outperforming my other solutions in its first commercial run in my pipeline. And for $395.00. And maybe most importantly, it was fun. I was able to focus on the work, not my engine.


_Mike Verta

cresshead
04-30-2006, 08:52 AM
Mike Verta>>>nice reply


hey no one has a gun to anyone's head MAKING them buy/use maxwell.

i don't have it but DO like the idea behind it

robodesign
04-30-2006, 02:00 PM
Yes, the reply of Mike Verta is straight to the point! There you go.

Next Limit should continue on developing this application and to make it more stable, more advanced, more *feature* complete [if needed]. And should never ever drop the realism for "rendering speed issues", because PCs are getting faster n faster each day and... besides this, if they could manage a render engine which could use the GFX card for some *number crunching*, then they would have no one to complain of the speed.

Way to go.

CupOWonton
04-30-2006, 04:59 PM
I just finished a series of hi-res renderings for the upcoming Star Wars Complete Visual Dictionary, and Maxwell was the clear choice for my rendering platform. It provided a photo-realism edge I wouldn't get in any other package; especially given the extremely short deadline. The render times were not especially egregious - 6 hours for the main 11x17 shots, noise-free, comprised of 4.8 million polys+, 6 diffuse light sources, 20 "display" light sources, full-GI, caustics, physically-accurate DOF and glare, and perfect anti-aliasing. Hype Hype and more Hype.

Maxwell doesnt provide you with a visualy more realistic image. People have been using MentalRay, Brazil, FR, Vray, and many other GI renderers to produce visualy photo realistic images that look no difference when the quality is at its highest, and they still render in fractions of the time. Now stop spreading the hype. Thats my big problem with you people, youre so hyped up on a slow piece of software youre believing everything they tell you. I spent no time tweaking the lights or the GI; or the DOF or the anti-aliasing for that matter - they were accurate from the moment I began the project.
So you knew exactly where you wanted your DOF to be? And you knew exactly how bright your lights were going to be before you rendered? thats A-ma-za-zing. :rolleyes:
The material set in Maxwell is flexible, powerful and most importantly, predictable.
Yes, when you preset things, theyre predictable. Though not powerfull, thats another hype word.I would never have been able to dial in 600+ textures in the time alotted, if not for being able to count on the materials to behave in a physcially-accurate way, saving me hundreds of hours of tweaking time which I didn't have. Just insulting your own intelligence right there. Words are words; and words without knowledge are a waste of bandwidth. The true value of a piece of rendering software is measured by whether it increases your productivity, and improves the quality of your work. A bad model with good rendering is still bad. And spending more time on rendering, doesnt improve productivity for people who already know what theyre doing in 3d. Materials dont scare us. Maxwell has done precisely that - outperforming my other solutions in its first commercial run in my pipeline. And for $395.00. And maybe most importantly, it was fun. I was able to focus on the work, not my engine. Maxwell hasent outpreformed anything, not in speed, and not in quality; and they boosted the price to $995, the lower price was to be funding, and to grab as many suckers as they could from the start. People are likely to stay with a product even if they know they were lured in with false advertising, broken promices, and are part of a community dominated by retarded admins who ban paying customers for being honest about a faulty product and horribly laid out company or just discussing other competing programs advantages over theirs and wanting those kinds of options.

_Mike (I should get paid to promote NextLimit) Verta

I just could not resist.

mverta
04-30-2006, 05:04 PM
Classic.

_Mike

CupOWonton
04-30-2006, 05:06 PM
Like B-movies, Juke boxes, and Pontiacs.

drmerman
04-30-2006, 05:06 PM
We get it dude. You dont like Maxwell. Fair enough, its not for everyone. MOVE ON.

alexyork
04-30-2006, 05:14 PM
We've got some licenses at work and i started messing around with the Beta a while back and got some very decent renders out of it, albeit far too low-res (so ultimately useless in production). One look at the maxwell forum a week after RC1 came out was enough to turn me off Maxwell for a few months. So now I'm looking forward to testing 1.0 out.

But if I see any amazing new promised features in 1.x instead of fixes to the existing serious bugs and missing promised features, I'm going to go a little mad. Please fix what's broken and what was promised, and then move on with new features. Maxwell is a super-featured package now and really doesn't need anything else for a while, except stability, reliability and a little more speed.

Also Mike, one piece of advice for you - I would close certain parts of the forum to the general public, or only allow them to view the galleries and announcements. Every time a customer/potential customer reads "baaaah XYZ feature is still not working?!?!" (and let's face it there are a lot of those posts in almost all of the maxwell subforums) it likely puts them off buying or sticking with their investment... just some advice!

I'm certain there's a very bright future for Maxwell and the clones that will inevitably follow, I just hope the kind people at NL will remember to slow down once in a while and address old issues rather than stampeeding ahead with half-working new features, otherwise it will be those clones that succeed in the long-run and not Maxwell. You surely learnt from past mistakes that not promising such huge developments in such short timeframes is the way forward (look how quiet the run-up to 1.0 was, and how happy everyone was when it suddenly appeared), so pace yourselves and perfect what you have now rather than worrying about being innovative, which you already achieved.

Canadianboy
04-30-2006, 05:17 PM
and most of you guys are adults? whats with all the arguments and people bringing up the same points that we heard when maxwell came out. Sorry but some of you guys are sad.

mverta
04-30-2006, 05:40 PM
Alex -

You say "you guys," but I don't work for NL. I'm just on the testing team. And I don't support Maxwell because I'm on the testing team, I'm on the testing team because I support Maxwell. I waited until just before 1.0 was released to really try it in production, and it proved worthy. So for me, the rest is academic. It either works for you or it doesn't. If you can't make it work, then go back to whatever engine you were using before. It's just not that big a deal. People who get all frothy-mouthed about a piece of software have mental problems.

Personally, the experience of working with Maxwell is much more enjoyable and creative for me. I don't miss worrying about GI optimization, I don't miss having to generate multiple passes just to dial in occlusion. I like having a real-world reference point for lighting power. I love the fact that the camera peforms accurate DOF based on the focal length and filmback; I appreciate not having to worry about tons of tweaky stuff which every other engine on Earth makes you deal with. That's my preference. I think Maxwell has a good future ahead of it, provided NL gets its business act together. But even for a 1.0, I'm thoroughly impressed.

In time, as you suggest, Maxwell will either grow, or spawn clones, but any way you cut it, it's the philosophical shift that's most impactful - the chance for the artist to take a lot of the technical stuff for granted, and get back to focusing on emotional power. And in this regard, Maxwell was first.

_Mike

CupOWonton
04-30-2006, 06:52 PM
Technicaly speaking, Maxwell is the clone. More hype for the masses, Mike?

ulb
04-30-2006, 08:28 PM
Technicaly speaking, Maxwell is the clone. More hype for the masses, Mike?
you're too biased to speak about anything unbiased.

your attitude concerning that software is quite amazing. it's like if your ex-girlfriend had left you for maxwell..

CupOWonton
04-30-2006, 09:06 PM
Actualy thats my attitude towards people who believe and spread hype. Maxwell is a good program for single shot renders that no one realy wants to deal with, INCREDIBLY SLOW, but good. But I will correct people who just start spouting the hype sorounding it.

LarsSon
04-30-2006, 09:18 PM
Mike: this is dead end. Like talking to the walls.
You are talking about Maxwell and future developement, but he is not
nearly in the same track. So let him tweak photons if he likes it
so much. :)

And for the others - please test what you can do with it.
I'm still surprised how it changed the way i think. It really makes
you feel free to do art, not being engineer.
It might be little too early for Maxwell, but computers are getting faster every day.
We have to be ready for that movement. This is the Next Limit you know.

...and it's not hype, its my opinion!

-LarsSon (Still Maxwell fanboy after all versions)

CupOWonton
04-30-2006, 09:58 PM
I'm still surprised how it changed the way i think. It really makes
you feel free to do art, not being engineer.
Hyped Opinion/Opinionated Hype

It might be little too early for Maxwell, but computers are getting faster every day. Fact

We have to be ready for that movement. This is the Next Limit you know.
Pure hype

...and it's not hype, its my opinion!
Actual opinion

-LarsSon (Still Maxwell fanboy after all versions)
Fact

alexyork
04-30-2006, 10:04 PM
People who get all frothy-mouthed about a piece of software have mental problems.

i'm sure that wasn't directed at me... :curious:

sure, I'm aware you don't work for NL - you must get a hell of a lot of flak for your heavy involvement with maxwell. whether you intended to or not, you are perhaps the main maxwell spokesperson. a tough job for certain. i read the forums for months, watching the battle unfold. it was like something from a tabloid newspaper! congrats for coming out relatively unscathed :)

It either works for you or it doesn't. If you can't make it work, then go back to whatever engine you were using before. It's just not that big a deal.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. The errors and limitations are on the part of NL and the actual software. If I can't make it work, it's because it's broken! (I reference SSS, material previews in maxll plugin, -hd switch, as examples).

I know what you meant though, and yes, some people will like the workflow and other people won't. I'm somebody who does, on the whole. I think everyone would leave their GI-tweaking number-fiddling renderers behind for maxwell at the drop of a hat, if it was substantially quicker. I know I would.

But remember that people paid for this software. It wasn't a gift. So it is a big deal for a lot of people. And those 'free' licenses as compensation are very nice but with each new license you need a new PC and that costs yet more money. Setting up a maxwell pipeline in a studio now requires a pretty heavy renderfarm just for a single print-resolution, noise-free image, under reasonable client demands.

Imagine on Thursday morning delivering an image to a client for sign-off which had taken 48 hours on a renderfarm to finish and the client turns around and asks you to change something major for Thursday evening. With any of the other renderers it would often be a huge headache but possible, but with maxwell I don't think it would be possible without relying on denoising tricks, if at all. This is not a far-fetched scenario either. It happens often.

Now I would imagine you're thinking, well, if you have that kind of deadline then you shouldn't be using maxwell. So then when do you take the risk? You might have agreed with the client to a 2-week deadline, so you take the risk with maxwell. But then the deadline comes forward and suddenly you're in a mess. What do you do? People on a deadline don't like to take risks. And everyone's on a deadline...

I should make one thing clear. I very much like Maxwell, at least I did when it was in Beta stage. From what I've seen 1.0 is back to Beta style quality with a lot extra, so that bodes well, and as I said I'm looking forward to testing it a great deal, especially multilight, which could be a huge timesaver in a tight spot.

Anyway this isn't a dig at you, Mike, or even NL for that matter. It's observations from a customer wondering how feasible this software is in production and wondering how likely it is that Maxwell will survive in the long term. I'm going to put 1.0 through its paces and I'm sure I'll soon find out.

Tora_2097
04-30-2006, 10:34 PM
Wow, CupOWonton it surely takes you a lot of time reading through all Maxwell related posts and enlighten the poor community with your wisdom.
I envy your endurance.
I think you pretty much made your point clear, why not look for another target?

Best regards,

Tora_2097

CupOWonton
04-30-2006, 11:48 PM
Wow, CupOWonton it surely takes you a lot of time reading through all Maxwell related posts and enlighten the poor community with your wisdom.
I envy your endurance.
I think you pretty much made your point clear, why not look for another target?

Best regards,

Tora_2097

Oh, Im sorry I've offended you with being honest and correcting people on their hyping of a product. I can see why you wouldnt want to question the company, the promotional hype. People seem to get dumped by NL when they start questioning anything. Dont shine your flashlight on me, Im just a poor forum junkie, it may blind me, though it'll take a few hours to get to the right brightness.

Rick Flowers
04-30-2006, 11:56 PM
I'm no genius or anything, but I do agree with the criticism.

I think that it's not a product worthy of promotional hype!- yet. I think it's definitely worth it to those (a small minority) who can actually afford to a take advantage of it.

It's a step in the right direction, but it's not a step on the moon.

eek
04-30-2006, 11:56 PM
Thats my big problem with you people,

I wasnt going to reply, but after seeing this cras statement i had to. Cup what is your problem! if you dont like a piece of software respond in a dam respectable manner! and dont go acting like a big kid without his toys. I havent used maxwell but from what ive seen looks amazing!, and even showing it to a friend whos a photographer was blown away- the sheer fact or its being more aproachable is great. Its fstops, real camera data, light setting and materials are gunna make it a hell of a lot easier for people to make accuarate work.

So please step off your high horse, and back up your statements with facts, stop making jibes at people who actually have decent comments and info to make.

Mike, is maxwell supporting xp under a boot camp'd mac? That comparison is pretty amazing!

eek

Kabab
05-01-2006, 12:42 AM
So just out of interest how well does Maxwell handle things like dense trees, oceans etc etc not just hard surface stuff.

mverta
05-01-2006, 03:45 AM
Well, the truth is...

Nobody can tell you your software is good or bad - if it works for you, makes you more creative, productive, and increases the quality of your work, then it's good for you; doesn't matter if it's Maxwell or Bryce. One thing I always do -which virtually none of Maxwell's inexplicably hostile detractors do - is speak from actual experience using Maxwell in production.

I, too, have been of the opinion that Maxwell was slow, but so far, in two real-world production scenarios, it was much faster than using my other engines. Part of that is just good 'ol fashioned render time, and some of it was because it only took a fraction of the time to set up. Plus, the multi-light feature got used so extensively in the last gig that even I was surprised. I don't know how many hours of render tests that saved me, but it was a life-saver. These are facts, and a large part of why I like it. Why wouldn't I? I get better product, faster, and more enjoyably.

It's just not rocket science. I don't argue with people who have mastered Maxwell and find it lacking; how could I? That's their experience, and they're proffering an informed opinion. Personally, I think $395, or even $995 is a freakin' bargain, but that's because I'm having success with it.

But most importantly, I honestly hope that as many users as possible have the same experience with it that I do, because it's a long way from the tedious universe of manually inputting GI settings and tweaking that we've come to accept is part of CG. I'm of the belief that it shouldn't be. I think we're better off in the long run when you can just put a 1k light in the scene, set a real-world f-stop and shutter speed and get an accurate image. I think the more you're free to focus on the content, and the less on the technology, the better.

There's only one way to know, and that's to use Maxwell. Reading the uninformed rantings of forum trolls high on the vapor of their own ass-crack sweat is of no value. Talking to users who are proficient, enjoying and having success with Maxwell is. So is talking to users who are proficient and not enjoying Maxwell. But since an engine has to work for YOU, the only way to truly know is to try it yourself. I haven't regretted it for a second.

I don't know if Maxwell will survive; I don't know if Next Limit will survive. But for this user, there is no going back to the primitive-feeling workflow of my other engines. It literally gives me a headache and it's a pain in the ass. I'm totally spoiled now, and the old ways feel like a pointless waste of time. This sort of experience is addicting, and I truly believe will change the way artists work.

_Mike

P.S. eek - I have had no issues with Maxwell rendering high-polygon scenes like you're describing. If I were you, I'd look through the Maxwell galleries, where 2 things are true: 1) there are boatloads of mind-bendingly good images, and 2) most of the authors don't bother to spar with morons on the forum because they're too busy producing mind-bendingly good images. Limitations or not, they're getting results.

CHRiTTeR
05-01-2006, 02:51 PM
most of the authors don't bother to spar with morons on the forum because they're too busy producing mind-bendingly good images.

Or you mean: their computers are too busy :scream:
Sorry, couldnt help it :D

BillSpradlin
05-02-2006, 07:27 AM
Or you mean: their computers are too busy :scream:
Sorry, couldnt help it :D

Last time I checked, people make art, not computers. Sorry, couldn't help it =)

jehutee
05-02-2006, 09:30 AM
CupOWonton u act like a lil' kid.... an annoying one...
how old r u....? grow up....

Maxwell is slow, so what, its not version 3 or 4, or even 2.... its version 1, give it time....

man... this forum, used to be peaceful....
arguing over a lil' shit.... tsk.. tsk...



We get it dude. You dont like Maxwell. Fair enough, its not for everyone. MOVE ON.

word.....!

CupOWonton
05-02-2006, 01:07 PM
CupOWonton u act like a lil' kid.... an annoying one...
how old r u....? grow up....
Maxwell is slow, so what, its not version 3 or 4, or even 2.... its version 1, give it time....
man... this forum, used to be peaceful....
arguing over a lil' shit.... tsk.. tsk...

And you should realise the 2 letter difference between you/u and are/r is incredibly insignificant in increasing ones typing speed for any reason other than the use of cellphones right?

Maxwell isnt slow because of version, its slow because of what it is. Shows how much you know.:rolleyes:

Also, watch the language, you wouldnt want to get reported for it.

jehutee
05-02-2006, 01:35 PM
wth....? haha, dude.... is this school or something....? this is the internet, man....
pfft...
forget about it....


I guess you are one of maxwell owner, huh...? hmmm... guess not.... just like to read, and not trying huh...? :rolleyes:


yeah, whatever dude..... go on....
just do, what you do best... spreading negativity...

anyway, bravo for the Ego Award.... :applause: always want to win eh....?


(some people have a lot of time... :rolleyes: )



hah... Im gonna stop now, this is starting to be like a drama or something....

Trenox
05-02-2006, 03:18 PM
I dont really understand all the haters here.. The way i see it is that we have become accustomed to the biased renders like vray, brazil, final render, mental ray etc.
They are all usefull in each their own way, but ultimately they all follow the same paradigme. Then comes the unbiased renders in the form of maxwell among others. They create the opportunity of handling things from a different perspective, and that might be super dandy in some cases, but not in others. Without these unbiased renders we wouldnt even have the CHOICE.

So why are people acting like this?

My guess is that ppl are themselves biased when it comes to their rendering engine of choice ;)

havokzprodigy
05-02-2006, 03:58 PM
Wonton I think you need a break from the computer.

Bongo51
05-02-2006, 06:18 PM
two points... if they have been mentioned already, sorry.

1. The cornell box. Someone mentioned that the shadows on the render were different then the photograph. In fact they are not. The amount of diffusion and falloff are identical. The only difference is what I assume to be the ambient light from the physical room. The maxwell render likely didn't have exactly the same room light as the real photograph. Most rooms are lit with enough light to cause the slight brightening of the shadows we see in the photograph. The render wouldn't have the benefit of an ambient 'room' light source.

2. Using maxwell. A lot of people have anger... but I don't believe it's the capability of the products which people are angry about. Next Limit has done almost nothing right developing this thing. The product itself does deliver (as mike can prove with his amazing star wars work). The featureset and interface on the other hand... YUK. The number of bugs and delays... YUK... the horror that went on at maxwellrender.com/forum... YUK. Maxwell on the other hand, as a renderer, is brilliant! Anyone who uses it will see that it can produce truly amazing images. This is really the most important aspect to a rendering engine... no? How well it renders? I for one think the whole affair has been totally botched by Next Limit, but within a couple years maxwell will attain the polish of a finished product, and all that crap will be forgotten. I have installed V1 and look forward to actually producing some images... finally.

:)

Pin_pal
05-02-2006, 06:38 PM
Hi I just wanted to chime in here again. I have some experince with the Maxwell render and I must say I agree with most of Mverta's points. Maxwell produces what I want, with minimal tweaking all these thing I really don't give a crap about (i.e photons, raidi, GI, bonces, falloffs, etc, etc..) and produces an image I expect. Once you get used to this and start producing quality results, you will never go back.

I'm not huge in to rendering and Maxwell does make it fun. It sucks tweeking and tweeking these other renderers forever just to produce something Maxwell might achive just after the first preview. So I say it's an awesome beginner tool. And for those of you who have mastered the other renderers, I can only say you must welcome this new render as an amazing new tool, no?

I'm betting in 1-2 years people will realize this style rendering is the way to go and never turn back.

CupOWonton
05-02-2006, 08:16 PM
Ok Lets just, lay it out shall we?

Im going to enhance some of the things I personaly like about M~R

Maxwell +'s
----------------
-No sample tweaking
-Tons of material presets
-Uses less resources because it doesnt save samples, or generate such things as shadowmaps.
-Is as close you can get to the "render real" button
-Supports most material effects
-Uses noise reduction integration to clean up pixelated noise from raytrace rendering
-Has extra plugins for effects and multilayer emmiter controll.
-So far the most popular implimentation of the MLT algorythm from what anyone can tell.(Not the first implementation, so its not original in that respect)
-DOF does not effect render time like a bias renderer would
-Great for Stills
-Everything is based on camera and film for better specifications
-Can render technical images of lighting rather than just what is visualy seen
-Physical Sky
-Dispersion
-Works with many other 3d programs.
-Time based rendering
-Consistant images

Maxwell -'s
----------------
-Incredibly Slow compared to every other renderer for a clean render. *Anywhere from 10-50X slower. ( This is essentialy limited by hardware now, The faster PC's get, the faster MW gets, and the faster every other renderer gets)
-Lack of DOF does not effect render time, meaning you alwayse get the slowest/fastest render no matter what.
-No controlls to increase speed
-Constant bugs up to the release which still has several bugs being reported
-MLT caustics effects are slow and cause problems when trying to use -real- glass for windows and other things that would otherwise be flat or curved planes of glass.
-Does not support displacement
-$1000 price tag making it more expensive than either using some integrated renderers, or other renderers available to various platforms.
-Only 10 render nodes instead of unlimited render nodes per lisence


NL's -'s
----------------
- well... people can tell you a multitude of things about NL
you can also search the forum for one of the earlier M~R threads where some miffed users posted.

People should note, that the only thing in the +'s thats realy a M~W only effect is its post render controll of light emmiters(a rather interesting idea realy). This is something that could possibly be done with any other renderer, and can be done simply through compositing anyway. Physical Sky and Dispersion have been around and are being implemented in other renderers if they didnt already have it. Glare is something anyone can do in post with a filter.

And again, My beef isnt with M~R, just the people who hype it and believe everything theyre told, and the company who mistreats customers.

Rick Flowers
05-02-2006, 08:41 PM
CupOWonton, good post- I think you made your point.

this thread is starting to get very repetitive.

I think those who are happy with MW are happy with it for good reasons, and those that aren't, aren't.. for better reasons. But that's just My opinion.

I've seen this (now somewhat pointless argumentive thread) on the frontpage for 4+ days, and it's getting old. =)

CupOWonton
05-02-2006, 08:47 PM
CupOWonton, good post- I think you made your point.

this thread is starting to get very repetitive.

I think those who are happy with MW are happy with it for good reasons, and those that aren't, aren't.. for better reasons. But that's just My opinion.

I've seen this (now somewhat pointless argumentive thread) on the frontpage for 4+ days, and it's getting old. =)

I was just sick of having to re-explain that im not mad at a program. Im hoping laying it out in a color coated list format kinda clears things up for them.

Rick Flowers
05-02-2006, 09:19 PM
ahahahah

yeah...
I find it funny when people accuse a person of anything such as "immature" etc... when they themselves are what?- trying to clean up a CG community forum thread on the internet?
Or are they actually trying to straighten out said person and help their lives?

I mean, we all do it.. but 100+ posts of it should be enough.

This should be a tool for newcomers to draw an opinion and near timed decision on whether or not to use Maxwell. So give your knowledge and opinion on the product- not give each other advice on how to speak. Leave that to the moderators.

On a positive note.. and since I kinda liked the color.. this part is good:

I have shown this thread (mostly the images and facts) to at least 3 colleagues just to impress on them the future of CG! It is a very effective and impressive feat, when a software can calculate anything that simulates reality to this degree with so little human setup.
It may not be the most efficient thing in the world (which I also explained) but it is very impressive.

eek
05-02-2006, 09:51 PM
Ok i said this before on another thread so i'll bring it up again. Please PLEASE dont make comments against another companys selling techniques, how it handles customers, its rapor with customers, or quality,lies etc. By all means discuss a product but do not, discuss how it handles its customers. Bring it up yourself with the comany but dont make it public. Im more worried for CGTalk because they can and could get sued for slander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel) i.e 'defamation of character ' if your not careful.

eek

CupOWonton
05-03-2006, 03:10 AM
Fixed it up a bit. Better?

Still, wouldnt CGtalk would have to be publishing it on its own. This is a form, a place of discussion, one can be wrong in discussion based on opinions, observations, and rumor in simple discussion. Just because it says news, doesnt mean this -is- the news.

Bongo51
05-03-2006, 05:17 AM
It's up to the moderators. I mean, nobody likes to read two 'adults' arguing like my 11 year old and her friends. There is ALWAYS room for diplomacy. There will ALWAYS be somebody whom you think is an idiot. there is a spectrum of personalities, and anyone on the far end from where you are seems alien and sometimes an idiot. The moderators should be the ones to decide who these 'idiots' are and censure them.

Isn't it best to attack a person's stance or opinion with facts and humour rather then take jibes at the person? When was the last time anyone saw THAT move be followed with, "gee, your right, I have reversed my position because you called me names!" I believe that form of communication always results in an escalation of hostility with a reduction in common sense and usefulness.

CupoWanton presents a very compelling and accurate (from my perspective) outline of maxwell's strengths and negatives. Though there are a couple points I wonder about, like can you not still turn off much of the calculation in the plugin? Without radiosity, etc... it renders much faster. In any case... It's a good list, and a good idea. But I think this is why attacking a person for having a strong opinion can sometimes blow up in your face. Many people who mouth off or make blanket statements are actually so well versed with what they speak of, and most likely command troops at a CG effects house... I constantly tender photographic advice glibly... I'm a photographer... and have been for 20 years, so I expect people to listen... but most of the time I remember that nobody knows anybody here. So I offer opinion and lots of :) to go around. Don't we get enough crap in the real world? ... we don't need it here too

My 2c

thanks fer listening

CHRiTTeR
07-07-2006, 01:21 PM
found this in the Vray forums :deal:


http://www.spot3d.com/vray/images/stuff/vray_cornellLife_noAlpha.png

CupOWonton
07-07-2006, 02:00 PM
found this in the Vray forums :deal:


http://www.spot3d.com/vray/images/stuff/vray_cornellLife_noAlpha.png

Haha, oh god, its THIS thread again. Yeah, Im sure a MW user is going to kick and scream if you showed them that Vray and hell even MentalRay are still capable of "photo acurate rendering". Realy,just because Maxwell samples every pixel a billion times and is incredibly slow doesnt mean that the other renderers arent going to come out with nearly the exact same solution if set up properly. But smoother, and in less time.

It looks like that one was done with PPT and they waited for it to be clean?

JohnnyRandom
07-07-2006, 04:18 PM
Haha, oh god, its THIS thread again. Yeah, Im sure a MW user is going to kick and scream if you showed them that Vray and hell even MentalRay are still capable of "photo acurate rendering".

hehe, lets not exagerate now Cup:D, well your probably are right someone will come in kicking and screaming:scream::p:D

havokzprodigy
07-07-2006, 04:22 PM
The vray version doesn't look as good or as accurate as the maxwell version.

sconlogue
07-07-2006, 05:49 PM
Well I've wasted enough time reading these entertaining posts to spend a moment longer writing one.

I happen use Mental Ray, Vray and Maxwell for production and they all have their uses. It's a love hate relationship with all of them because they all have faults. The only real comment I have beyond that is I don't understand how anyone can critical of a piece of software they have never used. And I don't mean make a box and hit render to see what happens. With all of these engines you get out what you put in. If you turn on mental ray with default options and not understanding the shader system guess what, your renders will suck. If you open up Maxwell and don't understand what your doing you'll miss it's strengths completely as well and produce crap. Breaking in a new engine takes actually using it.... a lot. Then judge.

JohnnyRandom
07-07-2006, 05:58 PM
The only real comment I have beyond that is I don't understand how anyone can critical of a piece of software they have never used.

Please don't make comments like this, unless of course you know who uses what and how often. It's is not a fair remark to make about anyone.

Lets not start another round-about who, what,which is better or worse, this is eventually what a comment like this will bring.;)

CHRiTTeR
07-07-2006, 06:00 PM
The vray version doesn't look as good or as accurate as the maxwell version.

Lol, you're in denial ;)

havokzprodigy
07-07-2006, 06:16 PM
Lol, you're in denial ;)

In denial of what I don't own either of the two softwares, just making a observation anyone with eyeballs can see.

The cuastics on the ball in the vray render are completly different than the photo.
The shadow around the light on the ceiling looks closer to the picture in the maxwell render.
Tons of noise in the vray render.
IMO a more realistic light closer to that of the picture is being cast on the walls(mostly the rear white wall) of the maxwell render.

I'm not the one in denial.

beaker
07-07-2006, 06:22 PM
The vray version doesn't look as good or as accurate as the maxwell version.no one cares about accuracy in cg because it's going to get all art directed to hell anyways. Atleast in the real world.

JohnnyRandom
07-07-2006, 06:26 PM
no one cares about accuracy in cg because it's going to get all art directed to hell anyways. Atleast in the real world.

ROTFLMAO:beer:

havokzprodigy
07-07-2006, 06:29 PM
no one cares about accuracy in cg because it's going to get all art directed to hell anyways. Atleast in the real world.
I was just pointing out the differences. As the vray render was trying to acheive accuracy.

CHRiTTeR
07-08-2006, 07:06 AM
In denial of what I don't own either of the two softwares, just making a observation anyone with eyeballs can see.

The cuastics on the ball in the vray render are completly different than the photo.

True but the Maxwell one has a big ugly caustic error (left side of the ball). I prefer Vray's version because it doesn't look errorish and is smoother. The error by the way is caused by a shader they used and wouldnt be there if they just used the standard vray material. I heared that anyway and dont know for sure cause they would have rendered it again with the standard material if this were so, but they didnt so... :shrug:

The shadow around the light on the ceiling looks closer to the picture in the maxwell render.
Tons of noise in the vray render.

Well, acutally...I find Vray's render has a far more identical ceiling then maxwell's overlit ceiling.

IMO a more realistic light closer to that of the picture is being cast on the walls(mostly the rear white wall) of the maxwell render.

Wel dont agree here either. Paste them ont top of eachother in PS and hide the layers in turn to compare. U'll see that the Vray one has less difference with the originall photo. :)
Also note the white specles on the lamp's socket. Thats maybe also the reason why thet cut of the top of that wall and the roof on the next limit site (link in first post) :D


But then again, maxwell does a nice job too, it onloy takes about 10 time longer too do it :scream:

mverta
07-08-2006, 07:22 AM
My advice to my fellow cg colleagues and competitors: you're right, Maxwell is flawed and inferior. Please stop using it. Please.

_Mike

ThomasAn.
07-08-2006, 07:30 AM
Hi all,

Here is another try on this box...

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/9219/outputcornellwglare7rw.png

Maxwell v1.1
(No image post-process of any kind)

Maxwell can do better than this ... (I did a few errors and will have to try again later)

CHRiTTeR
07-08-2006, 08:26 AM
Now thats better! ;)
Rendertime?

Jozvex
07-08-2006, 08:39 AM
Great Thomas!!

Yeah 1.1 is way way better for sure.

Para
07-08-2006, 10:45 AM
*pours more gasoline to flames*

I took the VRay pic and both pics from original post and slapped them together in Photoshop using difference. The pictures are not perfectly matched so so that's why there's quite big differences in edges of the various boxes but the general lighting shows up quite nicely. Things I find interesting:

Maxwell burned out the back wall.

The overall spread of color bleeding seems to be more accurate in Maxwell than the VRay counterpart.

Something odd is going on in VRay's caustics. Just look at the sphere and the shape of the block caustics on the lower left corner.

While VRay didn't burn out the back wall, it did so on the top of the light. Perhaps not enough indirect bounces?


That being said, they're both very nice and if I had to choose, I'd take the one that renders faster.

EDIT: Duh, forgot to link the picture :D

http://koti.mbnet.fi/~stupid/temp/photo-maxw-vray.jpg

kaiser_pro
07-08-2006, 11:09 AM
There are several things that we can all note from this thread:

One: talking about the pros and cons of a render (or most gfx programs) is like talking about religion, its highly unlikly anyone is going to be swayed, but you'll sure as hell try and "convert" them.

Two: Each renderer is useful for a specific job, be it professional, amature, still, motion, photo real, or stylised. no renderer is universal, and its only ever really good at what its designed to do.

Three: everyone is convinced they are right, regardless of whats being said.

Four: in the same vien as above: I rule, you suck.

but seriously, why do people get so upset? its not like people are going to ban your renderer of choice.

Jozvex
07-08-2006, 11:16 AM
Interesting comparison Para!

It makes me wonder Thomas, what Burn value did you go for with this latest render? Could that be adjusted to reduce the burn on the back wall without adversely affecting the rest of the image too much?

Adjusting that value doesn't require a re-render if you have the MXI saved so we might as well try to get it even closer if we can.

:thumbsup:

havokzprodigy
07-08-2006, 03:44 PM
Wow that 1.1 version looks great.

Good job Thomas
Would love to see a Mental Ray version.

CupOWonton
07-08-2006, 07:42 PM
Looks like the real main issue with the Vray version is a lense difference. Everything else along the lines of color seems to match up, theres a clear bending difference with the camera shape which seems to offset all the lines. The caustic from the sphere is rounder though in the vray version. But it also looks like there may be a tiny discrepency in the refractiveness or just a wierd problem with the camera lense difference.

Anyway, Side by Side, youll still be able to pick the photo out from the renders, but side by side with the renders they look very much the same.

Im just gonna go back to my open max window and continue to get mad at mental ray.
-OT- Anyone know of a good Mental Ray/Max forum thats more active than the one we have here? Some of these shader options are driving me absolutely insane.

dagon1978
07-09-2006, 01:40 AM
there's a downloadable scene? i would make some test...
great work Thomas! ;)
IMHO the big difference between Maxwel&Vray results isn't the quality or the number of errors, but the setup speed for a "photorealistic" render ;)

CupOWonton
07-09-2006, 01:58 AM
there's a downloadable scene? i would make some test...
great work Thomas! ;)
IMHO the big difference between Maxwel&Vray results isn't the quality or the number of errors, but the setup speed for a "photorealistic" render ;)And the rendering times.

Myliobatidae
07-09-2006, 05:08 AM
I think the answer is simple...

When its fast enough to do animations, that's when people will switch to Maxwell...

When was the last time you used a render engine, that wasn't fast enough to do animation ???

And when that day comes, I will probably switch too, not until then though...

Jozvex
07-09-2006, 05:19 AM
CG doesn't = animation though. Plenty of areas of CG only do stills. Keytoon studios just finished using Maxwell to render out 4 or 5 animations for the Disney Channel that look great though! They're short animations of course.

Also, there's no reason to switch to Maxwell at all. I mainly use Mental Ray still! I'll be using Maxwell 1.1 shortly though for product renders and maybe a TV commercial if I get that job.

yinako
07-09-2006, 05:31 AM
never use a program thats less then 3 years old, unless its unique and has no equivelent.

Myliobatidae
07-09-2006, 05:38 AM
"CG doesn't = animation though"
pretty much, the only thing I can think of is print work...and you could pretty much paint it in photoshop faster...

P_T
07-09-2006, 05:43 AM
"CG doesn't = animation though"
pretty much, the only thing I can think of is print work...and you could pretty much paint it in photoshop faster...
Archviz. Highly accurate lighting model is very much appreciated by architects so they know how the sunlight falls into the interior.

Jozvex
07-09-2006, 05:44 AM
Fair enough, my Photoshop skills aren't that good.

Myliobatidae
07-09-2006, 05:49 AM
Archviz. Highly accurate lighting model is very much appreciated by architects so they know how the sunlight falls into the interior.

Sorry, but we've already gone past stills, clients want animations now, and they want them yesterday...

P_T
07-09-2006, 06:40 AM
Sorry, but we've already gone past stills, clients want animations now, and they want them yesterday...
Actually they want both stills and walkthrough and if you read the CGarchitect.com poll in 3DWorld magazine #79, you'd see that Maxwell has garnered a lot of interests in archviz industry. It took 11% of the market just in beta stage and as both Maxwell and hardwares gets faster, it will only become more popular.

Myliobatidae
07-09-2006, 06:50 AM
By virtue of the way Maxwell works, it really can't get much faster, only the hardware can get faster...

And 11% for the Beta, wow, and that's when people liked it, now they're fed up with how difficult it has become...

Para
07-09-2006, 07:39 AM
And 11% for the Beta, wow, and that's when people liked it, now they're fed up with how difficult it has become...

As far as I know M~R is still relatively easy to use so could you elaborate a bit on that?

CHRiTTeR
07-09-2006, 08:11 AM
Maxwell is cool, sure its got its use, but my point was; with other renderers you can get stunning quality too at a fraction of the time

Jozvex
07-09-2006, 08:58 AM
Maxwell is definitely easy to use when compared to other renderers. Here are all the rendering options:

Render Time: After this length of time the renderer will stop.
Render Threads: 0 is default which means all.
Sampling Level: Same as render time in that it's a cutoff. Once it reaches that level it stops.
Burn: Tonemapping option which brings down/up the higher end of your dynamic range (more or less). You can change this after/during the render anyway.
Gamma: Your desired gamma. Also changeable during/after render.
Autoexposure: If you don't know about camera fstops etc you can let it figure out a nice setting. Changeable -----
Render Path: Where to render to.
Render in Low Priority: A checkbox.
Command Line: A command line for adding any switches you may want but most are in the interface now anyway.
Enable Multilight: On/off. Multilight is the feature to adjust your light intensity during or after the render.
Disable Bitmaps: On/off. Lets you turn off textures.
Enable HD: Reduces memory consumption by using the hard drive to store data instead.

That's basically all the renderer related options. There are more but they're things like caustics:on/off or alpha:on/off etc. There are more render setting *catagories* in other renderers than there are settings in Maxwell.

Now I know most of the "Maxwell is so hard" complaints are about the material editor but.......there's only 1 material type and there's only 15 settings or less. The problem lies in that people are used to "faker" settings like glow/ambience/spec highlight/etc and so when all you have are Reflectance, Transmittance, Roughness and an IOR (there's more like bump) it seems foreign.

The beta was easy because you pressed "plastic" or "metal" and it was hard coded to look nice. You can still do that now through wizards.

Beta to me would have gotten old real fast. There are only so many objects that all look like the same "plastic" or "metal", haha!

:shrug:

CHRiTTeR
07-09-2006, 01:00 PM
The rendersetup goes indeed verry fast
All the other stuff takes a lot of time...
The rendering itself goes verry slow ;) (And the fast rendersetup time doesnt compensate those big rendertimes.)
Also the process of creating a material is quite the task and verry annoying if you dont have the physical data of a specific material...
It also seems that testrenders, when setting up a light rig for example, can also take a lot of time coz from what I've seen the 'fast' preview renders in maxwell can look A LOT different from the final thing. So setting up light can also take a huge amount of time.

dagon1978
07-09-2006, 03:07 PM
The rendersetup goes indeed verry fast
we know

All the other stuff takes a lot of time...
we know

The rendering itself goes verry slow ;) (And the fast rendersetup time doesnt compensate those big rendertimes.)
we know



Also the process of creating a material is quite the task and verry annoying if you dont have the physical data of a specific material...
bah, m~r has one of the simplest material editor i know


It also seems that testrenders, when setting up a light rig for example, can also take a lot of time coz from what I've seen the 'fast' preview renders in maxwell can look A LOT different from the final thing. So setting up light can also take a huge amount of time.
doh? the progressive render show the results very fast, and u have one of the most flexible light system (with control of global exposure/gamma or the per-light system), i cant see your point, and u are repeating also the same things more and more, so what u wanna do?
just use vray if u like it and stop repeating known things, please ;)

dagon1978
07-09-2006, 03:09 PM
mmm, no scene to donwload? :bounce:

CHRiTTeR
07-09-2006, 03:58 PM
I'm not the only one repeating. But you are right :blush:
Also wanting that scene btw :D

Myliobatidae
07-09-2006, 04:24 PM
Well dagon1978 and Jozvex can count themselves as the elite minority, cause over at cgarchitect.com nobody is saying its easy : http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/98-maxwell-render/

And you won't find too many critics at the NL forums cause they delete them...

CupOWonton
07-09-2006, 04:53 PM
As far as I know M~R is still relatively easy to use so could you elaborate a bit on that?
I would like to see facts that M~W is used as the main renderer for 11% of the arch vis market both in house and freelance. Otherwise thats a BS number they threw out there.

Jozvex
07-10-2006, 01:18 AM
Just for fun and because my job entails watching render progress right now (in Mental Ray hehe), let's explore the Maxwell Material editor:

http://www.jozvex.com/temp/MaxwellMaterials.jpg
(Sorry it's kind of a large image I know, I'll shrink it if people want me to.)

Ok, that's the entire material editor. Every post-beta image in Maxwell's gallery and gallery forum were created using that for the materials. Some main areas:

1. The material preview, top left (duh). It either auto-refreshes or you manually refresh it when you like. By right clicking on it you can get to options like the quality, and what scene you would like to use as the preview. You can create your own scenes for it, or it comes with about 8 pre-made ones. On my computer I have the preview set to maximum quality (default is about half) and it takes about 5 seconds to refresh.


2. The Basics menu has all the beta-like materials as shown in the expanded bit on the right. The Wizards menu has the currently available wizards which step you through choosing colours and textures to create a material matching whatever surface type you chose (expanded to the right). A few more wizards are usually added with each release.

3. The Material Layers section under the material preview. There you add BSDFs (aka materials), coatings, SSS layers etc. You can rename them, obviously. You can turn the layers on/off for the preview and adjust their weighting. You can also use masks/weightmaps to blend them. Maxwell automatically adjusts the weighting if you can't be bothered or your maths is a bit weird hehe, for example two layers set to 100% each will be weighted 50/50.

4. Material Info button. It expands up to take over the layering area. It just shows a resulting BSDF curve for your material. I guess science types know what that's about, hehe.

Now for what all the properties do:

Reflectance (0"): This is the main colour setting of your material. Because there's no seperate diffuse/specular controls in Maxwell this colour does all of it. Clicking the checkery button lets you load a texture.

Why are there two colour swatches there next to each other? The first swatch is where you set the colour you want, the second swatch is showing you the colour you'll get. The reason you need the second swatch is so you can maintain physical correctness. The other property with a second swatch is Transmittance (basically transparency). You can't have a beach ball or brick wall in real life that reflects back 80% of the light while also letting 80% of the light through...that would be 100% of the incoming light turned into 160% by the shader, which is slightly bad. This way, if you did set a really bright colour for both Reflectance and Transmittance, Maxwell weights them to not exceed 100% and displays the weighted colour in the second swatch.

Reflectance (90"): This is the colour at grazing angles (perpendicular to the view) when you have a material displaying fresnel properties. Most of the time you just leave this alone unless you're after a specific effect that calls for it.

Transmittance: How much light passes through the material.

Attenuation Distance: The distance (in whatever units you supply to the right) it takes before all the light entering a transparent material is absorbed.

Ior: Index of refraction. There are three 'modes' I guess you could call them.

* Custom: You just set the Ior/Nd yourself. For materials that are at least partially transparent you use values like 1.51 for glass or 1.33 for water as is the case with other renderers. If the material isn't transparent, you use values of 3 to 1000 to control the reflection falloff. 3 is the strongest fresnel effect, 1000 is like a mirror (equally reflective all over).

* Load file: You can load a file named water or glass etc to set the Ior for you if you don't know it.

* Load full IOR data: This lets you load a scientifically measured material that contains info for the whole material. Reflectance/transmittance/absorption/IOR/dispersion is all controlled through that file. There are TONS that come with Maxwell and on the forums is a thread displaying renders of them. These materials are slower than user created ones though because as far as I know their data describes every property down to the per-wavelength level.

Abbe: To the right of the IOR feilds. When you turn on dispersion this is the setting that controls how much light splitting there'll be. Lower number indicates a stronger dispersion effect.

Roughness: This is how you tell Maxwell if the material is chalk or a mirror. 0 is perfectly smooth like a mirror and 99 is really rough like a brick.

Lambertian: If you're used to using lambert materials a lot in other renderers they added the option here too. It overrides the Roughness.

Anisotropy: This effect occurs on something like brushed metal or hair where you have lots of tiny grooves, giving the effect that the reflections are stretched in one direction moreso than the other direction.

Angle: The angle the reflectance is stretched in.

Bump: A place to load your bump map and set it's strength! The funny M button that reminds me of batman for some reason is where you can load a normal map.

I think that's everything. To me that's all pretty straight forward and I'm sorry if that makes me elite, I don't have any degrees in science or math.

If there are any questions about making materials or using that editor I'll try and answer them if I can.

:thumbsup:

EDIT: Oh, I should point out that in my image showing the coating, I turned off the BSDF/material layer.

Myliobatidae
07-10-2006, 03:28 AM
Well thanx for the info, maybe you should teach a class over at cgarchitect.com, they seem to be having quite a time with that, to tell the truth it doesn't look any less or more complicated than Vray, although probably not as complicated as Mental Ray...

How do we tell the difference between the post-beta images and the beta images at the Maxwell gallery ???

Jozvex
07-10-2006, 04:25 AM
Hmm that's a good question, I suppose you can't in any official way. People that vocally love beta and hate everything that came after it would swear they could spot the difference a mile away.....except for when they're actually given a test and they get it wrong, hehe (has happened multiple times).

Myliobatidae
07-10-2006, 04:39 AM
so does anyone have any images created with version 1, just wondering, cause I haven't seen anything outstanding lately...

Jozvex
07-10-2006, 04:57 AM
Well this was the most recent thing I rendered in 1.0:

http://www.jozvex.com/Maxwell/BokehBuddhas.jpg

And I steeeupidly deleted that scene by accident so I can't do a new SSS version in 1.1 without setting it up again (ie get the buddha model etc).

It's a shame they closed the forums to non-members because the gallery forum has tons of new images all the time. :hmm:

vintagetone
07-10-2006, 04:05 PM
Maxwell render looked a bit blurrier, but very close. Lets see more real world comparison, maybe a diner counter at night or car in a basement garage, or a city street night and day.

Jozvex
07-10-2006, 10:22 PM
We have some more real world vs Maxwell tests in the A-Team but they're not very exciting. They just test 1 feature at a time like caustics or something. The trouble with doing more complex tests is controlling the real world scene, to minimize the number of unknown factors.

A diner at night would be great but it also takes time to model/capture textures/read light levels etc if you want it to be super accurate.

If users created tests like that though it would be more "real world" in terms of using Maxwell in production but would likely be less accurate than doing it scientifically.

FSGFX
07-19-2006, 02:35 PM
It would be great if we can get the 3d scene and try to get the same result with Mental Ray.
As a lot of people here say, it is easy to get the same rendered picture out of Mental Ray in a fraction of rendertime, this would be the chance to prove it :)

CupOWonton
07-19-2006, 07:58 PM
It would be great if we can get the 3d scene and try to get the same result with Mental Ray.
As a lot of people here say, it is easy to get the same rendered picture out of Mental Ray in a fraction of rendertime, this would be the chance to prove it :)

Depends on the image type at times, but still do-able. With MR one would have to use the Mr_geolight plugin to turn a surface into a light emmitter for the lightbulb. Otherwise the faked version would create some discrepency.

Masnado
07-19-2006, 10:19 PM
Thank you for the info!!:thumbsup:
But I'm wondering what is the workflow Maya-Maxwell: it renders directly in Maya? Or there is a better method?

Jozvex
07-20-2006, 01:07 AM
You can render from inside Maya yes. The plugins are currently being overhauled to catch up with all the new Maxwell features of late. But yes, you can model/texture/light/render everything in Maya and render straight to Maxwell.

The other way is to model/texture in Maya and then export the scene to Maxwell Studio, for lighting and rendering there. Currently this is the way I do it because there are some more advanced features in Studio which the Maya plugin doesn't support yet. Plus, I like Studio anyway, hehe.

When you're working in Maya you have to use Maxwell materials rather than standard Maya or Mental Ray materials. From inside Maya you call up a program called MXED (Maxwell Editor) which is basically a floating version of the Maxwell material editor from Studio. You use MXED to create not only the Materials but also the Emitters, because all lights are geometry in Maxwell and it's their Emitter material that does the lighting.

About the Cornell Box test scene, I do have access to it....I'll have to ask about sharing it though. Or maybe if not sharing it, they'll let me do a MR version. The VRay one was re-created separately, perhaps they would share theirs?

EDIT: One more thing about the Maxwell workflow, currently Maxwell only supports polygons. No NURBS or SubD (well actually, it would depend on what your 3D app calls SubD I guess) and no 'effects' like real particles (in Maya you can script objects to clone onto the particles which would work, I assume Max can do that) or volumes or paint effects (unless coverted to polys).

Basically, it just renders polys! So anything you can somehow convert or replace with polys you can do that.

FSGFX
07-20-2006, 09:27 AM
About the Cornell Box test scene, I do have access to it....I'll have to ask about sharing it though. Or maybe if not sharing it, they'll let me do a MR version.

That would be great.

FSGFX
07-20-2006, 08:51 PM
If anyone is interested - I have rebuild the scene in XSI 5.
I'd like to see some people try to render it with Mental Ray.

You can get the scene here (http://www.tribu2.at/cornell.rar)

I have currently some trouble getting the geolight thing to work.
Somehow I cant enable the visibilty of the light (checkbox is grey).

Masnado
07-20-2006, 09:26 PM
The other way is to model/texture in Maya and then export the scene to Maxwell Studio, for lighting and rendering there. Currently this is the way I do it because there are some more advanced features in Studio which the Maya plugin doesn't support yet. Plus, I like Studio anyway, hehe.

Thank you Jozvex!
Do you export the scene as obj?

ThomasAn.
07-20-2006, 09:58 PM
Here is a 3ds of the box.
http://rapidshare.de/files/26455406/JoseCornelBox_reconstructed_.3ds.html
(if you can't download ... sorry, thats all I can do)

The box is not the original (but it is what I used for my test) ... it was reconstructed from scratch based on the schematics here:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14254

jomaga
07-21-2006, 12:25 AM
Hi Thomas, Jared, glad to see you here!
This is the original 3ds file, would be nice to see parallel tests
http://rapidshare.de/files/26467629/cornell_box.3DS.html

Jozvex
07-21-2006, 01:33 AM
Ahh thanks you guys!!

:thumbsup:

Jozvex
07-22-2006, 02:46 AM
Ok here's my first result with Maya 7's Mental Ray:

http://www.jozvex.com/temp/Mentalray_Cornell.jpg

I've worked on it for about 1.5 hours I suppose and that image rendererd in 30 minutes using:

Gamma 2.2
Final Gather with 4 diffuse bounces
Ctrl_objectlights for the light source with the Mib_CIE shader to set the colour to 6600k kelvin.
L_Glass shader for the glass.
Ctrl_rays + DGS for the wall shaders, then just plain DGS for the other bits.

I need to use Ctrl_rays to supply a non-glossy version of the DGS to the FG precomputation.

Obviously it needs more work, there's no caustics from the cylinder and the light fitting is doing that bright rim thing. I'm going to replace the "Ctrl_rays + DGS" combo shaders for Ctrl_shading next which should speed up the rendering because of better sampling control.

EDIT: Oh dear, no wonder the glass cylinder looks wrong in mine, the normals are reversed! The sphere didn't get a chance to go wrong in that department because I replaced it with a new one.

EDIT2: Ok I had some more time with it, here's version two which is much better. Using the always fantastic Ctrl_shading shader instead of the DGS:

http://www.jozvex.com/temp/Mentalray_Cornellb.jpg

It rendered in 27 minutes. Now it's just a case of getting rid of that pesky burn and the FG artifacting. The cylinder caustics is a bit off two.

FSGFX
07-25-2006, 10:24 PM
Here is my first try with XSI.
But it's still a long way to go.....

http://www.tribu2.at/cornell_01.jpg

Can anyone tell me why I cant activate the visiblity of my geolight??

FSGFX
07-26-2006, 12:48 PM
One step closer...
http://www.tribu2.at/cornell_02.jpg

CGTalk Moderation
07-26-2006, 12:48 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.