PDA

View Full Version : is 9.6 burning output?


Ernest Burden
06-02-2006, 06:17 AM
I've noticed this with a number of files rendered with 9.6-- the single image (TIF) output looks burned, overbright in the lights, detail lost. I thought it was my lighting, until I rendered some finals with a mult-layer also. Looking at the layered PSD, the brights are NOT burned, except in the RGBA lowest layer. But the combination of the shadow, refl. refrcn, GI, etc. looks like I expected.

This is really serious if I'm right. Has anyone else experienced this image burning of normal output vs. multi-layer?

I've been baking a bunch of textures and I think 9.6 may have blown out all the subtle lights on those, as well. If it has, I'm in trouble with an urgent animation.

I tried turning off colormapping, checking that the output is 100% brightness.

The more I look at the baked textures I've been working on all day, the more screwed I think I may be. They all look blown out! They don't look like they render to screen. And I have to run animation as of tonight.

kidult one
06-02-2006, 08:28 AM
I was gettin blown out results on some quicktime renders but thought it was just codecs - have been plagued by lots of over-all buggy-ness with 9.6 - settings not changing or reverting - make changes and then the undo (ctrl-z) doesn't work- have to manually reset figures and I already posted about cloth doing strange things - whats up?

Incarnadine
06-02-2006, 09:39 PM
I haven't seen any burning in my renders. I don't use multipass very often (i.e. not lately anyway) or baked textures.

sketchbook
06-02-2006, 11:17 PM
haven't noticed, however i have noticed that sniper pro does not show lighting near as bright as the rendering when done in the viewport.

Ernest Burden
06-03-2006, 12:05 AM
My baking had some other problems, but I noticed the burning with regular renders. I found that the assembled PSD/multi-pass image did NOT equal the TIF single-layer render. It should.

This is specific to 9.6

Incarnadine
06-03-2006, 01:56 AM
Dumb question - are you doing your comparison in the picture viewer or PS? I have PhotoPaint and just wanted to see if that is going to be a complicating issue before I try this myself.

MJV
06-03-2006, 02:31 AM
My baking had some other problems, but I noticed the burning with regular renders. I found that the assembled PSD/multi-pass image did NOT equal the TIF single-layer render. It should.

This is specific to 9.6

It's never a perfect match and never will be. Multipass breaks an image down into components to be reassembled with Photoshop transfer modes that don't necessarily represent how an image is assembled internally. It's at best an approximation intended to isolate elements as an aid to compositing, not an end. If you think there is a problem then try to isolate the problem in its simplest form. Mere conjecture that you think maybe something is wrong isn't enough of a start to go on. Try to come up a single concrete example that shows the issue in simplified form.

kidult one
06-03-2006, 08:31 AM
To MJV: your post doesnt make sense ? whats the use of multipass if the re-assembled image does not look like the complete one in c4d? The idea is to give U access to do differant passes for compositing - like taking the specular and adding blur to get a bloom effect on the highlights and such - I have used this many times and the assembled image always looks the same - am busy with a multipass render now (got about 5 hours to go but will post if its doing the same)

Ernest Burden
06-03-2006, 02:41 PM
It's never a perfect match and never will be.

Agreed, but pre-9.6 the match was much closer, in fact I always prefered the flat version and used the layered to aid image tweeking in Photoshop. But since 9.6 I've found the flat render un-usable on some finals, and flattened the multi-pass image for my 'keeper' file. Also--internally AR is using all the usual methods to make an image, isn't it? There isn't some special modes available only to AR's internals, is there?

Mere conjecture that you think maybe something is wrong isn't enough of a start to go on. Try to come up a single concrete example that shows the issue in simplified form.

I will go through recent renders and come up with a visual comparison. I haven't been using 9.6 for all that long, so there aren't that many projects done yet. I have one big deadline Monday and another mid-week, so time is tight here.

But all you need to do is render something with some GI, reflections, varied surfaces, and compare the flat TIF output to the multipass output generated at the same time and see if the flat one is burned, has lost detail in the light areas.

But I will put together a visual as soon as I can.

Limbus
06-03-2006, 03:58 PM
Hi Ernest,
are you comparing both images in Photoshop or did you open one of them in another viewer while comparing. It could be that the flat render has a different color profile than the multi-layer image. This could end in flat colors when the image is viewed with a viewer that does not use colormanagement.

Florian

sketchbook
06-03-2006, 07:50 PM
It's never a perfect match and never will be. Multipass breaks an image down into components to be reassembled with Photoshop transfer modes that don't necessarily represent how an image is assembled internally. It's at best an approximation intended to isolate elements as an aid to compositing, not an end. If you think there is a problem then try to isolate the problem in its simplest form. Mere conjecture that you think maybe something is wrong isn't enough of a start to go on. Try to come up a single concrete example that shows the issue in simplified form.

is it a closer match if we were to use aftereffects instead?

MJV
06-03-2006, 08:41 PM
But all you need to do is render something with some GI, reflections, varied surfaces, and compare the flat TIF output to the multipass output generated at the same time and see if the flat one is burned, has lost detail in the light areas.


This file has all that and the multiplass results were identical except for some fringe hair on the bee. About as complex an MP file as I've rendered in some time.

http://www.mvpny.com/BottleCollection38m6B3AE1.jpg

MJV
06-03-2006, 08:49 PM
is it a closer match if we were to use aftereffects instead?

I always use After Effects for MP post work, but any program with the right transfer modes will work as long as the file opens with the correct modes. Versions of Photoshop before version 7 didn't have an add or linear dodge mode, so pre PS7 can't produce correct results.

sketchbook
06-03-2006, 09:48 PM
care to tell us how you setup your MP MJV? i find it hard getting the layers eitehr in the correct order, or choosing the one's i need blended, or separate.

would be much appreciated!

also, how do you set i up for AE? do you just save it as a layered psd and open in AE, or do you save an AE project file with it?

thanks! your image is awesome!

MJV
06-03-2006, 10:38 PM
care to tell us how you setup your MP MJV? i find it hard getting the layers eitehr in the correct order, or choosing the one's i need blended, or separate.

would be much appreciated!

also, how do you set i up for AE? do you just save it as a layered psd and open in AE, or do you save an AE project file with it?

thanks! your image is awesome!

Thanks. :) If I'm not sure what I'll need I will just include everything in the multilpass so it's there just in case. You don't have to use the AE exporter. AE correctly opens MP files automatically, with the correct modes for all channels, and with the blend and RGBA channels on the bottom where they'll be out of the way unless you need them. It's easier to turn off passes you don't need than it is to rerender. In general I always try to include a Diffuse+Specular+Shadow blend channel, as this is where Cinema seems to have the most difficulty assembling separate passes. If I know exactly what passes I will be needing then I put everything I don't need into a blend channel. So for example, if I only need to tweak reflection and refraction in post, I'll make a blend channel that includes everything but reflection and refraction.

For example, in this file I wanted to be able to multiply AO with the ambient pass. Normally, you don't want your AO affecting your direct light, so I arranged my passes as follows:

http://www.mvpny.com/AOtutorial/AOxAmbientmv.jpg

This scene is from the Kitchen render challenge. You can see how I approached it with MP using AO in the scene file here: http://www.mvpny.com/AOtutorial

Simon Wicker
06-04-2006, 12:08 AM
To MJV: your post doesnt make sense?

you have to remember that if you are rendering to anything other than full float data your multipass render CANNOT exactly match the version internally composited by cinema.

this is because the multipass version will be clamped (data ranges from 0 to 1) but internally cinema can handle data above 1.

this will be most apparent when you have illumination levels above 100% (i.e. use HDRI, overdrive lights or have superbright speculars).

cheers, simon w.

MJV
06-04-2006, 12:55 AM
you have to remember that if you are rendering to anything other than full float data your multipass render CANNOT exactly match the version internally composited by cinema.

this is because the multipass version will be clamped (data ranges from 0 to 1) but internally cinema can handle data above 1.

this will be most apparent when you have illumination levels above 100% (i.e. use HDRI, overdrive lights or have superbright speculars).

cheers, simon w.

Right. Thanks for reminding me. That's why the Diffuse+Specular+Shadow blend channel. Also, it isn't just full float data that's a problem but color multiplication as well I believe. And this is will be true for any MP capable software.

kidult one
06-04-2006, 08:05 AM
Yes i did a few tests and see now - how do you do the blend channel thing - not sure if I understand right but u combine passes in one "layer" / pass ?
Seems helpful

AdamT
06-04-2006, 03:17 PM
Yes i did a few tests and see now - how do you do the blend channel thing - not sure if I understand right but u combine passes in one "layer" / pass ?
Seems helpful
It's one of the multipass options. When you choose it you'll see a list of channels that you can include in the blend pass.

sketchbook
06-04-2006, 03:32 PM
thanks very much MJV!

i have been doing a MP render project with a similar setup. a blend with everything but reflection, and then a separate reflection and a bunch of buffers. worked like a charm. i can blur those reflections all over the place!

i was hoping to get all channels separate, however i was not able to get it to open properly in photoshop.

i will test the differences that AE gives me.

as for the AO, that's s tricky one. i sometimes render a separate render that is just AO as i believe STRAT suggested, however it gets really super annoying having to do that, so instead i have been adding AO to certain materials instead. it doesn't seam to hit render time too much as long as you use it sparingly.

sketchbook
06-04-2006, 03:33 PM
you have to remember that if you are rendering to anything other than full float data your multipass render CANNOT exactly match the version internally composited by cinema.

this is because the multipass version will be clamped (data ranges from 0 to 1) but internally cinema can handle data above 1.

this will be most apparent when you have illumination levels above 100% (i.e. use HDRI, overdrive lights or have superbright speculars).

cheers, simon w.

errr, yeah, what he said! since when are painters so smart? :)

FranOnTheEdge
06-10-2006, 10:26 AM
I need to keep an eye on this thread. I'm just experimenting with lighting in Cinema and was just about to install the 9.6 update but if everything's going to look burnt out in 9.6 I may hold off installing it. No point learning something and then finding it's not quite right and you need to start all over...

nycL45
06-10-2006, 12:32 PM
I need to keep an eye on this thread. I'm just experimenting with lighting in Cinema and was just about to install the 9.6 update but if everything's going to look burnt out in 9.6 I may hold off installing it. No point learning something and then finding it's not quite right and you need to start all over...

Update a copy of your 9.x with 9.6. If there are probs, switch back to 9.x.

Incarnadine
06-10-2006, 12:57 PM
Fran-
If you are not rendering as Multi-pass for later tweaking, then this isn't really an issue. Still it is a good thread to be aware of - I'm definitely following it.

Ernest Burden
06-10-2006, 10:34 PM
Fran-
If you are not rendering as Multi-pass for later tweaking, then this isn't really an issue. Still it is a good thread to be aware of - I'm definitely following it.

Quite the opposite. The problem I've seen--and not proven by any means--is that the flat version looks WORSE than the compiled multipass. I've had to use the multipass version since the flat TIF produced at the same time is burned in the lights.

I'm sorry I haven't posted the A/B comparisons yet--too busy. But I will get them up this week.

Incarnadine
06-11-2006, 12:23 AM
If you can only see it has burned by doing a comparison, and you have tweaked your lighting so it does not appear burned in your flat image - is it really burned? I am speaking as a hobbiest here, I do understand the tweak capability that MP can afford you when dealing with a client and their "that's cool, but could you...'s". (been there done that when artwork was manual!)
That aside, I am interested in this topic and very much would like to see the comparisons.

And I can sympathize about the busy, RWL has been so busy of late that I haven't had a chance to render anything in just over a week - I'm starting to Jones here LOL)

Ernest Burden
06-11-2006, 12:47 AM
If you can only see it has burned by doing a comparison, and you have tweaked your lighting so it does not appear burned in your flat image - is it really burned?

No, you don't get it. I'm prep'ing my image setup to my liking, sending it off to the render purgatory that is the multi-hour output of a single image at medium-res, and then looking at the result and saying 'oh my f*ing god, how did I end up with that?'. And then opening the PSD version and realizing that I could use the assembled layers to be what I expected in the first place.

But again--I've only used 9.6 for a few finals (one big animation though) and I'm not at the point where I'm sure I have a bug here.

Hence the question.

Incarnadine
06-11-2006, 01:32 AM
Sorry, I think I see where I was not understanding. It rarely happens to me as I usually run a bunch of editor test or area renders to adjust my lighting and then half or quarter size finals before letting it go full final settings. I don't usually see surprises.

As stated previously, and apologies in advance if I still have it wrong above, I am still interested - going to have to try that PSD layer tweak in my PhotoPaint and see if it works. I may have a chance tomorrow to try it.

Simon Wicker
06-11-2006, 03:23 AM
ernest,

there will always be differences between the flat rgba and the multipass version (the multipass version will be clipped zero to one, the rgba won't).

a bug would be if 9.5 rgba looked normal and 9.6 rgba looked burnt out or if rgba 9.5 and multipass looked the same while rgba 9.6 and multipass looked different.

cheers, simon w.

Ernest Burden
06-11-2006, 01:38 PM
a bug would be if 9.5 rgba looked normal and 9.6 rgba looked burnt out or if rgba 9.5 and multipass looked the same while rgba 9.6 and multipass looked different.

That is exactly what I have observed.

The files in question are a re-render of a project I did last year. So I'm changing a few materials, pushing furniture around, changing camera angles on some of the views. But its an existing project that I was pretty happy with under 9.5

I think I've seen the 'effect' on other files, but there are so many variables involved in a final arch-vis image that it's hard to nail it down to a new software problem vs a file setting.

So that's why I asked if others were seeing this, instead of posting 'this is a bug'. I'm not sure yet one way or the other.

FranOnTheEdge
06-12-2006, 07:52 PM
Fran-
If you are not rendering as Multi-pass for later tweaking, then this isn't really an issue. Still it is a good thread to be aware of - I'm definitely following it.

I've done a bit of multipass rendering - if by that you can include... No, on second thoughts it was just an effects pass, not quite 'multipass' as I see that's a seperate option.

There's lots in this thread I don't understand at all, a bit like reading phonetically typed Japanese - koneecheewa! or chinese... but now and then I see something I've heard of before and even occasionally a light bulb goes off. Of course it's pretty quickly switched off when the Japanese cuts in again, but fascinating none-the-less.

FranOnTheEdge
06-12-2006, 08:12 PM
I've tried out "Multipass" and the file saved in the path under the "save" tab of render settings and the one saved in the path under the "multipass" tab only look different in that the multipass one is totally black...
obviously I have no idea what I need to do to see the difference.

:shrug::scream: :)

Ernest Burden
06-12-2006, 08:38 PM
the "multipass" tab only look different in that the multipass one is totally black...

You want to save it as a PSD file, and tell C4D what layers you want. There are many, but you can just do a render with all image layers, for example.

You open the result in Photoshop and play with the layers for things like reflections, transmissives, GI, specularity... turn them one one at a time to see the map, play with layer modes and layer strengths to get a handle on how useful the file can be in post-work.

But the RGBA flat image should look as good or better than the layered version--it always did before.

FranOnTheEdge
06-12-2006, 09:28 PM
I finally managed to get some layers to show up in the psd file, but only atmosphere and shadow have anything in them.

I think the problem here is that the file I chose to play with just doesn't have enough in it to CREATE any layers from. (see image)

CGTalk Moderation
06-12-2006, 09:28 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.