maxer
04-03-2003, 04:39 PM
could u advise me how is FINAL RENDER...?? i mean is it..really good.. any -ve or +ve... points..thanks.:bounce: :eek:
View Full Version : could u advise me how is FINAL RENDER...??
|
|
maxer
04-03-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by maxer
could u advise me how is FINAL RENDER...?? i mean is it..really good.. any -ve or +ve... points..thanks.:bounce: :eek:
could u advise me how is FINAL RENDER...?? i mean is it..really good.. any -ve or +ve... points..thanks.:bounce: :eek:
jeb
04-03-2003, 05:42 PM
Im not fR guru, but i can tell you a couple of thing that have worked ok for me in the real practice.
The Photon reuse is an option that fR uses to not have to recalculate the Gi and coustics data everytime you hit the render button, so its a time saver. This is really nice option when you are doing stills. I do stills for printing and i just calculate the photon illumination in a small size(like lees than 2k images) with good quality, then i save that data and re use it in the biger render so it renders faster.
Also the Tbaker (texture baker) utility is very nice. dont know how if it hadles its custom mapping cuz i always apply it with my objects already mapped, but its very high quality and very precise. for game texturing is a blessing.
For animation im not too happy with final render. it does take long time to calculate GI ( wich almost no one uses GI for animation) and the photon maping has nasty results when objects move or lights change. But the raytracer is good fast and acurate. antialias is very, very precise. you can se that in the final render sites. DOF its very simple and kinda fast without GI.
THe toon is very fast but i use fR stage 0 so i bet toon in stage 1 is awesome and i read that it export the images as Adobe ilustrator files:applause:
Subsurface scatering is very acurate but slow with gi.
Well i suck for review writing, but this is how i see fR. hope this works for you
The Photon reuse is an option that fR uses to not have to recalculate the Gi and coustics data everytime you hit the render button, so its a time saver. This is really nice option when you are doing stills. I do stills for printing and i just calculate the photon illumination in a small size(like lees than 2k images) with good quality, then i save that data and re use it in the biger render so it renders faster.
Also the Tbaker (texture baker) utility is very nice. dont know how if it hadles its custom mapping cuz i always apply it with my objects already mapped, but its very high quality and very precise. for game texturing is a blessing.
For animation im not too happy with final render. it does take long time to calculate GI ( wich almost no one uses GI for animation) and the photon maping has nasty results when objects move or lights change. But the raytracer is good fast and acurate. antialias is very, very precise. you can se that in the final render sites. DOF its very simple and kinda fast without GI.
THe toon is very fast but i use fR stage 0 so i bet toon in stage 1 is awesome and i read that it export the images as Adobe ilustrator files:applause:
Subsurface scatering is very acurate but slow with gi.
Well i suck for review writing, but this is how i see fR. hope this works for you
Oktavian
04-04-2003, 09:23 AM
I know the Help sucks and the videos arn't much better but you should take a look at the fR files. Not all of them are very good for learning but some are.
Here is only one little hint that helps me to speed up the time for the lots of testrenderings: Decrease the "RH-Rays" to 1, 2 (or something very low), so you can save a lot of time while doing testrenderings for the right "Min./Max. Density" settings and distribution.
Here is only one little hint that helps me to speed up the time for the lots of testrenderings: Decrease the "RH-Rays" to 1, 2 (or something very low), so you can save a lot of time while doing testrenderings for the right "Min./Max. Density" settings and distribution.
CapnPanic
04-04-2003, 03:51 PM
my personal experiences with fR, after using (or trying to use) it in production for 3-4 months, were not pleasant ones. i would often come in after a night of rendering and find that it had crashed 20mins after i had left the night before. GI solutions had to be 'built up' by rendering the scene over and over from many different angles in order to be able to move a camera through a scene without seeing major artifacting.
when i was using it, a raytrace material crashed it every time. the anti-aliasing was the same as the scanline, except in reflections and refractions where it was particularly bad, unless you cranked the material supersampling way up.
the caching of gi solutions was handy sometimes, but generally it would go ahead and compute more GI every frame anyway, so if u spent 2 days working on a good solution for a scene with grass in it, so u would have a better frame time in the long run, it still was slow as dirt when it hit the grass, etc
so my opinion is that fR is not much good for animation. it may work well for stills, but since i don't generally do stills, just animation, i never saw its good side :\ it can produce images etc which are nicer then scanline, but i feel it cannot be a real competitor against the likes of brazil and vray until it sloughs off the burden of the scanline base (as stage-1 is supposed to do) and integrates and streamlines its interface alot more.
now this is my personal opinion, and i WAS using stage-0 right after it came out, so the code may have been cleaned up since then, but i'm not about to install that damned viral Clamp protection crap on my workstation again to find out.
just my two cents :)
when i was using it, a raytrace material crashed it every time. the anti-aliasing was the same as the scanline, except in reflections and refractions where it was particularly bad, unless you cranked the material supersampling way up.
the caching of gi solutions was handy sometimes, but generally it would go ahead and compute more GI every frame anyway, so if u spent 2 days working on a good solution for a scene with grass in it, so u would have a better frame time in the long run, it still was slow as dirt when it hit the grass, etc
so my opinion is that fR is not much good for animation. it may work well for stills, but since i don't generally do stills, just animation, i never saw its good side :\ it can produce images etc which are nicer then scanline, but i feel it cannot be a real competitor against the likes of brazil and vray until it sloughs off the burden of the scanline base (as stage-1 is supposed to do) and integrates and streamlines its interface alot more.
now this is my personal opinion, and i WAS using stage-0 right after it came out, so the code may have been cleaned up since then, but i'm not about to install that damned viral Clamp protection crap on my workstation again to find out.
just my two cents :)
Lord Tyrion
05-18-2003, 11:49 AM
the clamp system sux and the worst thing is that only legal user have to use it. the legal customer is once again the idiot.
fR workflow is the worst of all max renderer.
i still wait for a fR image with clean artifact free gi with details in the diffuse light solution.
the rendertimes are bad, compared to vray.
fR is no real bucket renderer, it is not even a real render, more a render effect.
so you will not have the network benefits of a real bucket renderer when doing large stills.
fR materials are not as good as vrays (not to mention brazils) and a pain to work with.
if i where you i would stay away from fR stage-0.
itīs outdated and the support from cebas is nothing compared to the support you get from chaos group (vray).
unfortunately cebas is not offering a demo (what could be the reason?) and if you want to sell stage-0 you have to pay 50$ for the license transfer. :(
only my 5 cents.
fR workflow is the worst of all max renderer.
i still wait for a fR image with clean artifact free gi with details in the diffuse light solution.
the rendertimes are bad, compared to vray.
fR is no real bucket renderer, it is not even a real render, more a render effect.
so you will not have the network benefits of a real bucket renderer when doing large stills.
fR materials are not as good as vrays (not to mention brazils) and a pain to work with.
if i where you i would stay away from fR stage-0.
itīs outdated and the support from cebas is nothing compared to the support you get from chaos group (vray).
unfortunately cebas is not offering a demo (what could be the reason?) and if you want to sell stage-0 you have to pay 50$ for the license transfer. :(
only my 5 cents.
S_3D_A
05-18-2003, 02:45 PM
Tyrion is right about it not being a real render engine. When you install the plug you don't access it through the current renders option in your render scene dialog. Its an alternate material that is added in your material editior.
If you plan on doing alot of cad work I would definitly go finalRender. It is comparable with lightscape with its output. But if you plan on doing anything other than cad chose something else.
If you plan on doing alot of cad work I would definitly go finalRender. It is comparable with lightscape with its output. But if you plan on doing anything other than cad chose something else.
KiboOst
05-18-2003, 04:43 PM
CaptnPanic, you got an animation gi engine in stage0, whech reuse to keep the calculated solution, the engine will calculate the new part. Secondly, there is no reason standard mtl raytraced with st0, as it's damn slow, and yes unstable. Try the fr_mtl, wich is damn fast. For aa in reflection, check filtering.
It's right that stage0 isn't a full renderer, it's a package of functions for the scanline renderers.
And last but not least, I can't produce any edge artefact or black splotches with stage1 ! And don't speak about speed. Yes, not on the market at this time...
My 2cents
Kib
It's right that stage0 isn't a full renderer, it's a package of functions for the scanline renderers.
And last but not least, I can't produce any edge artefact or black splotches with stage1 ! And don't speak about speed. Yes, not on the market at this time...
My 2cents
Kib
Oktavian
05-23-2003, 09:12 AM
Don't mess with it's functionality, workflow (brazil's is more worse IMHO) or what fR is or not is.
The result is important (!) and fR don't needs to hide.
Yes are right, now it's a bit out of date and stage1 is a long time in coming but you can't compare other render-engines that should be match against stage1 and not stage0.
Anyway, it's not a question of what is a better renderer (they are all doing their job well), more which one suits you fine.
The result is important (!) and fR don't needs to hide.
Yes are right, now it's a bit out of date and stage1 is a long time in coming but you can't compare other render-engines that should be match against stage1 and not stage0.
Anyway, it's not a question of what is a better renderer (they are all doing their job well), more which one suits you fine.
Lord Tyrion
05-23-2003, 10:24 AM
lol.... you must be the only one who thing that brazils straight forward menu structure and workflow is worse then fRīs mess.
for a amateur (maybe) only the result is important.
if you make your living with 3d and have to deal with deadlines then SPEED and the WORKFLOW is important.
even cebas admits that the workflow is not good.
how can you compare renderer like vray or brazil with a non existing product like stage-1? :)
if you wanna buy a rendere now then stage-1 is not a option at all.
stage-1 is hyped like stage-0 was and we all know that cebas promise things they can not deliver (GI at scanline speed, artifact free GI, flickerfree animations etc.).
they tell bullshit in their stage-1 feature previews again like they have done with stage-0.
they claim that they are the first who offer true 3d motion blur (untrue! vray has it since 2002), they claim that they are the first who can distribute the GI calculation (untrue! vray can distribute the irradiance map) and so on.
i agree that all rendere can produce fine images!
itīs like cars, most of them will bring you from point a to point b.
but will you buy a skoda when you can have a ferrari for the same money? :D
for a amateur (maybe) only the result is important.
if you make your living with 3d and have to deal with deadlines then SPEED and the WORKFLOW is important.
even cebas admits that the workflow is not good.
how can you compare renderer like vray or brazil with a non existing product like stage-1? :)
if you wanna buy a rendere now then stage-1 is not a option at all.
stage-1 is hyped like stage-0 was and we all know that cebas promise things they can not deliver (GI at scanline speed, artifact free GI, flickerfree animations etc.).
they tell bullshit in their stage-1 feature previews again like they have done with stage-0.
they claim that they are the first who offer true 3d motion blur (untrue! vray has it since 2002), they claim that they are the first who can distribute the GI calculation (untrue! vray can distribute the irradiance map) and so on.
i agree that all rendere can produce fine images!
itīs like cars, most of them will bring you from point a to point b.
but will you buy a skoda when you can have a ferrari for the same money? :D
Oktavian
05-23-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Lord Tyrion
for a amateur (maybe) only the result is important.
if you make your living with 3d and have to deal with deadlines then SPEED and the WORKFLOW is important.
As I said: Everybody should use a renderer which fits to his workflow.
It's good that you've point out "speed" but sadly brazil is not the fastest. Vray has a good speed.
how can you compare renderer like vray or brazil with a non existing product like stage-1? :)
As I also wrote: You CAN'T compare them! So nobody should compare features from different releases (and different products) that can't be compared as this was done here.
Nevertheless have a nice weekend ;).
for a amateur (maybe) only the result is important.
if you make your living with 3d and have to deal with deadlines then SPEED and the WORKFLOW is important.
As I said: Everybody should use a renderer which fits to his workflow.
It's good that you've point out "speed" but sadly brazil is not the fastest. Vray has a good speed.
how can you compare renderer like vray or brazil with a non existing product like stage-1? :)
As I also wrote: You CAN'T compare them! So nobody should compare features from different releases (and different products) that can't be compared as this was done here.
Nevertheless have a nice weekend ;).
Lord Tyrion
05-23-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Oktavian
[B]
It's good that you've point out "speed" but sadly brazil is not the fastest. Vray has a good speed.
do you bought brazil or is your opinion based on the public beta?
the public beta has not much in common with the final product.
QMC GI not the fastest without a caching strategy or photon maps, thats true.
vray offers irradiance maps and photon maps to speed up the calculation. you donīt have anything like that with the public brazil beta.
but when you use photon maps with brazil you can speed things up a lot!! thats something most people, who played around with the beta, forget.
when you speak about speed, which speed are you talking about GI speed or raytracing speed?
sure vray looks faster but you have to pay for this speed.
you pay with accuracy. caching or interpolation techniques will always sacrifice quality.
stage-0 is not on top in any of this categories (speed, quality).
As I also wrote: You CAN'T compare them! So nobody should compare features from different releases (and different products) that can't be compared as this was done here.
why should we are unable to compare image quality and speed?
it is done all the time.
we compare cars, hifi racks, cameras and scanners, etc. etc. what makes renderer so special in your eyes?
a professionell photographer can make better images then a amateur, true.
such a comparison would be unfair but we can compare the technic and the handling based on standard situations.
when i look on the dispersive refraction images from stage-1 and brazil i can clearly see that the brazil images look much better.
maybe cebas has no good artists to produce good images.... but i must make my decison based on something!
cebas offers no demo so how would you decide what to buy?
[B]
It's good that you've point out "speed" but sadly brazil is not the fastest. Vray has a good speed.
do you bought brazil or is your opinion based on the public beta?
the public beta has not much in common with the final product.
QMC GI not the fastest without a caching strategy or photon maps, thats true.
vray offers irradiance maps and photon maps to speed up the calculation. you donīt have anything like that with the public brazil beta.
but when you use photon maps with brazil you can speed things up a lot!! thats something most people, who played around with the beta, forget.
when you speak about speed, which speed are you talking about GI speed or raytracing speed?
sure vray looks faster but you have to pay for this speed.
you pay with accuracy. caching or interpolation techniques will always sacrifice quality.
stage-0 is not on top in any of this categories (speed, quality).
As I also wrote: You CAN'T compare them! So nobody should compare features from different releases (and different products) that can't be compared as this was done here.
why should we are unable to compare image quality and speed?
it is done all the time.
we compare cars, hifi racks, cameras and scanners, etc. etc. what makes renderer so special in your eyes?
a professionell photographer can make better images then a amateur, true.
such a comparison would be unfair but we can compare the technic and the handling based on standard situations.
when i look on the dispersive refraction images from stage-1 and brazil i can clearly see that the brazil images look much better.
maybe cebas has no good artists to produce good images.... but i must make my decison based on something!
cebas offers no demo so how would you decide what to buy?
Oktavian
05-23-2003, 11:58 AM
I do not start "flame wars" about what is best rendere out there. It's evident that every product has its pros and cons.
Maybe I didn't pointed out my statements right, you don't understand them or you don't want to understand them, so here once again with the above said in mind:
Everybody should use the product that fits best for them.
And also once again: Have a nice weekend :beer: .
Maybe I didn't pointed out my statements right, you don't understand them or you don't want to understand them, so here once again with the above said in mind:
Everybody should use the product that fits best for them.
And also once again: Have a nice weekend :beer: .
Lord Tyrion
05-23-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Oktavian
I do not start "flame wars" about what is best rendere out
just like me :)
i wonder where you see flames in my posting?
i think we can talk about the pros and cons when you are able to say more then some platitudes, and that does not mean we start a flamewar. :)
fact is, you have to make a decison when you buy a renderer.
the decision is based on your personal likes and dislikes but also on the technic, features, ease of use.
i donīt know any professionell studio who use povray or highlight for itīs work, there must be a reason. :)
I do not start "flame wars" about what is best rendere out
just like me :)
i wonder where you see flames in my posting?
i think we can talk about the pros and cons when you are able to say more then some platitudes, and that does not mean we start a flamewar. :)
fact is, you have to make a decison when you buy a renderer.
the decision is based on your personal likes and dislikes but also on the technic, features, ease of use.
i donīt know any professionell studio who use povray or highlight for itīs work, there must be a reason. :)
CGTalk Moderation
01-14-2006, 07:00 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.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.