Speed on 10.5

[Dearmad]

How's the quality playing out with the latest versions?

[koon69]

Much better. I think for you to get the best results I would go-bare mimunum-higher than the 5 setting in multi pass. Any lower and you still get the jaggies. But you go higher and the render really starts to shine. IMHO 10.5 really does compete well with C4D and LW. I have seen some pretty crappy stuff out of LW and C4d and some great stuf in AM. If teh artist knows the tools well itll look nice. Im happy with 10.5! :>

[cosmonaut]

So 10.5 is really that much better that 9? How's the stability? I got so frustrated with 9 I pretty much swore off AM. I spent $99 on my upgrade and got ZERO use out of the thing. It kept crashing and everytime I put the CD in I thought my computer was going to go nuclear on me. I even bought a new drive and it did the same thing. From what I saw on the mailing list it was a common problem. Is anyone having that problem with the latest release? Just curious, if things are really getting that much better maybe I should upgrade again instead of switching apps.

[JTalbotski]

I say upgrade. Versions 9 was unusable and 9.5 wasn't all that it should have been. But v10 is very stable and the cool things in v10.5alpha are fantastic. I don't think you will be disappointed.

[Dearmad]

I think, unfortunately, with Hash I'm going to remain at least one iteration behind their development. I want to wait until v10 is no longer being released with updates and see what it's become before setting myself into it.

Heh, I'm still with 8.5p anyway.

[cosmonaut]

Gotta say, I'm really tempted. All this encouraging talk and those Jeff Lew Training DVD's coming soon ... But I just gotta know if anyone is having the CD spinning problem with the latest release.

[Goon]

CD spinning problem?

[cosmonaut]

Yeah, whenever I put my version 9 CD in my computer it starts spinning wildly and vibrating my computer like mad. When I got on the mailing list last summer there were a fair number of people who experienced the same thing. Some claimed a new drive fixed it so I bought a new DVD-ROM drive and the disc did the same thing. Never had a problem with any other CD before or since. Just want to make sure I won't have the same thing happen again if I upgrade.

[koon69]

I have a measly Compaq and the CD spinning is no problem. After you launch AM take the CD out of the bay. It doesnt have to be in all the time. 10.5 is rockin'! You wont be upset if you get it.

[PJC]

Unfortunately I think it's just getting a noisy CD. My v9 disk was quiet (could it have been that I didn't use it? :P ) My v10 disk is noisy, but so are a number of other CD's I have. I think you just get a fair share of slightly off-balance CD's in you life...i could be wrong tho.

- pjc

[John Keates]

To get back to the issue of speed, v10 & 10.5 are faster partly because they use deep shadow maps. If you are using z-buffered shadows then that is where you get the advantage. I havn't seen much speed improvement in v10.5 though it is only an alpha so perhaps that is to come. 16x multipass is what you need to get comparable AA to earlier versions. It has the advantage though that you get motion blurr, depth of field and accurate shadows plus the AA is more complete. However, rendertimes can be troublesome. I don't know how to compare it with other apps for speed. Does anyone else have some good comparisons?

[eboy]

Cinema4D leaves it in the dust especially when you have to render at 16x multipass in AM to get similar AA quality. I tried a 64 light skylight rig on a fairly average size model (<1000 patches) in AM 8.5 @ PAL resolution on my 2.0 ghz P4 and it came up with 12 hours as the render time, i didn't bother. I still prefer AM though which i find more bizarre as time goes on.

[eboy]

i meant 10.5 not 8.5 oops.

[John Keates]

Does anyone have any ideas about how the renderer could be sped up further? I expect that Hash have thier own ideas but perhaps if we showered them with tips then they would keep on working on it.

[Dearmad]

Yeah, I'm sure Hash would just fall all over themselves with our brilliant ideas... :eek: :eek:

Lest we forget how this forum was founded. :beer:

[John Keates]

So that's a no then?

[Dearmad]

I just have always experienced the people at Hash to be very jealous hens when it comes to their "technology." They change it as they see fit, you are a consumer.

By no means let me stop you from emailing them yourself with suggestions.... rotsaruck. :thumbsup:

[John Keates]

Well, I am thinking of mailing them about some ideas but as I don't have much expert knowledge about this, I thought that it would be good to get peoples heads together on this one. One thing to remember is that there are several ways the renderer can go. For instance, I have thought of a way to make the renderer adapt with each pass so that it doesn't have to do so much work, however this would lead to a degredation in quality. Would people want this?

Also, there could be more options for ratraced shadows to have them increase the sample levels depending on how much they need it. But this would lead to a more complex interface.

Also, I am no expert on renderers. Maybe other people will be able to contribute to this and put in ideas. What is the point in me requesting things that won't work? That would realy stop hash from listening. If we went to them with a whole load of ideas that were carefully worked out then maybe that would do something. After all, this forum HAS made a difference allready. Perhaps it could do more.

Sorry, that got a bit long winded.:hmm:

[koon69]

Send in your ideas! never hurts. The quality is getting way better might as well as get the speed to! :>

[John Keates]

Ok, I will put some ideas down here...

1. Adaptive sampling.

It seems that a lot of rendering time is wasted when a very plain area is passed 16 times.

The renderer should only give a pixel another pass if it looks like it needs it.

This should be calculated on a probability basis.

The likelihood of a pixel being re-rendered should be a function of the amount that the colour of the pixel has changed with each pass (if the colour has changed on each pass then it is a safe bet that it will need more passes, and the more that it has changed on average, the more passes that it needs).

However, this may cause a problem in the following instance:

If there is a plain blue sky and motion blur is on then the last frame in a pass will be the only one to change. Using the above method, this pass is not likely to be rendered as the algorithm will have decided that it is not likely to be needed.

However, some pixels in the last pass will be rendered as it will be done on a probability basis. This will cause a stippled effect where there is a pixel rendered here and a pixel not rendered there. This would be dealt with partly by the soften option that has already been implemented. Also, any texturing or film grain would hide the stippling. Also, if this method increases the render speed then there can be more passes resulting in better quality where it counts.

IT might be a good idea also to have each pixel rendered in a different pass order. In the method above, the first pass will always get rendered and the last one is the one that will get left out so the pass order should be shuffled per pixel.

The probability of a pixel being rendered could also be adjusted on the basis of the previous frame or frames.

2 User defined sampling.

It would make sense to have the sampling probability adjusted by the user. If there is a high contrast, important character in the foreground then they should get more passes than a lower contrast simple background object. It might even be possible for the renderer to work out what objects in the render tree will need more passes so that this can be done automatically.

3. Adaptive ray-traced shadows.

Where you have more than one sample on a shadow, you can end up with a stippling effect. This is particularly noticeable where the light is large and the shadow is far away from its source object. Since a ray-traced shadow knows how far from the source it is then it should be able to adapt so that it renders more samples where it needs it (further away where the penumbra is more spread out). A maximum and a minimum level could be set on the number of shadow passes for each light. It should also be possible to calculate where there only needs to be one sample (where there is no penumbra).

4. Under- sampling.

There could even be under-sampling where passes that are considered to be unlikely to make a big difference would render with larger pixels. This method would be in-compatible with the shuffled order method.


Aside from this, I suspect that the lower level code could be optimised somewhat.

Please tell me if I am talking rubbish as I don’t know much about this stuff. Do other renderers do this kind of thing?

Cheers,
John.

[Dearmad]

1 & 2 are something I've been asking for for awhile here. Why Hash hasn't done it, I've no idea. I've used AA since polyray in the early 90's- it's a kick ass simple solution.

Again, why Hash chooses to not bother, is anyone's guess.

3 seems good to me.

4 is the only one I'd probably never use. I'm pretty uninterested in providing Hash any tool they might use in their FINAL quality stages that would worsen the product more. As a DRAFT tool, it sounds reasonable, but my draft renders are already fast enough for me.

Good suggestions, well-written and clear. I'm too much a cynic to bother anymore with Hash at this level, but good luck!

[John Keates]

Ok, good to hear conformation. I will post it right away!

[SouthernLaw]

Personally, I think Hash should partner up with Splutterfish and give us a pared-down version of Brazil for rendering. A:M would be practically perfect then :)

Actually, the more I learn about building good materials in A:M, the more I'm convinced that creating high-quality renders is feasible. However, the speed issue is still there... A:M can take minutes to do what other renderers can do in seconds.

Integrating Brazil into A:M would still kick butt though!:buttrock:

[John Keates]

I think that everyone would love to have Brazil but I'm not sure weather this fits with Hash's "build it yourself" philosophy.

However there is no harm in doing a bit of matchmaking.

[John Keates]

I have contacted splutterfish about the possibility on an AM version of Brazil. This is basically what they said:

It would probably be at least considered by th eprogrammers but it is more likely that they will produce a standalone version that could have front ends written for it by a third party. This may not happen though. If it does then there is no way of telling when and it will probably not be soon.

I am just going to keep suggesting things to Hash for now. I am sure that they can do it. It is just a question of will I guess.

[Dearmad]

You know, on the topic of this thread, I'd LOVE to see more 10.5 renders shared in this forum so I can see some of the output differences.

[ZeBoxx]

John: blip
:)

[Dearmad]

If splutterfish did put out something that allowed third-party stuff to link the two, I know I'd look into programming it. I'd love to have the option of rendering via more than one raytracer straight from my project files.

Since AM files are simple text files and the data is all right there, I can't imagine writing an app to link into a ready-made receiving end would be so terribly difficult. Might be a fun project.

[John Keates]

Originally posted by ZeBoxx
John: blip
:)

Oops, I forgot to put my jammers on. He he he. ;)

[John Keates]

Here is an image done in 10.5. Bias normals, porcilain, hairguides (self shadowing), large specular:

[My Fault]

Outside of that huge crease at the top of his forhead, that is SWEET! Nice work :thumbsup:

[John Keates]

Thanks for the compliment:) He is not finished yet and that crease will go. I had forgotten about it though. It is amazing how you can stop seing something like that.
I realy enjoyed making him. I looked at him in v10 today and thought "Oh my god! I can't believe I used to put up with those creases" The only bias tweeking that I did in 10.5 was for MAKING creases, not getting rid of them. If you are using AM then save yourself some time and upgrade.

Oh, by the way, does anyone have a good technique for getting rid of the glowing lines under places like the chin? They are caused by the shadow map. Maybe I should use a luminesance map and make the crevices dark?

Roll on a faster renderer so I can use raytraced shadows.....

[pequod]

Hey John,

Great caricature! It really looks like you can add detail to a model without worrying too much about creasing. Do I detect a trend towards modelling heads and not bothering with the rest of the body?
Incidentlly, the 'Bobby Charlton' hair style is the perfect use for the new guide hairs.

So, the strange crease on top of his chin is the result of z-buffered shadows? This kind of inaccuracy is why I stay clear of them and prefer the raytraced ones.

[Squeakypics]

John:
Very impressive. It looks like I might have to swap to 10.5 now that it has gone beta. (Even though I swore not to after the
9.5-10 episode)
Any chance of seeing a wire frame? I'd love to see where the creases aren't happening, if you know what I mean.

[John Keates]

Hi all.

Piquod:

Hello there. Yes, as I didn't have to fiddle with bias handles, Adding new geometry didn't make creases. All I had to do was to make the patches as square and even as I could and it renders fine.

And yes, you do see a trend for moddeling faces and not bodies. I have made most of a body for him though but my computer died again. I am writing this from a library computer. I havn't made many bodies because I am afraid of rigging.

Squeekypics: I will post a wireframe when my computer is fixed (hopefuly tommorrow)

Cheers all

[dragonfollower]

I'm just curious, how long did it take that hair to render? And also, what kind of improvements have been made for hair in 10.5? Is it useable yet? Just wonderin....

-Brian

[John Keates]

The hair didn't take too long to render considering that it was self-shadowing. However there is not much of it there and I was using a z-buffer shadow. I can imagine that lots of hair and raytraced shadows would kill renderspeed but then that is the case for other renderes too.

Other improvements: Controll over crinkle amount and frequency + hair renders in mirrors etc (raytrace compatable). I am not a big expert on hair rendering though so I don't know what else to expect. I would like to be able to have the colour vary from hair to hair and allong the hairs length but maybe this is asking too much?

[John Keates]

Here is the wire for those who wanted it. It orrigionally had many more patches, partly because I was using doubled up splines for making creases. I decided to just use the magnutude instead. I cut the patch count by a third! I never use maintain curvature by the way. I just add/remove geometry and then shift the cps about to make the patches even. I am OK with this as it doesn't take long and I get to refine the shape as I go. Sorry that he is small, he wouldn't attach otherwise.

[Squeakypics]

Thanks very much for that. Some very elegant splinage there. I'm inspired!
*sigh*
It looks like my creasing issues will be sorted out by a lot more modeling practice ;)

[John Keates]

Thanks for the comments squeekypics. :) I forgot to mention:
A good thing about moddeling in 10.5 is that you can get away with 3p patches. You can see some near his brow and below his ear. There are also some dirty great big ones round the back of his head. These help with keeping spline continuity and also mean that you dont have to make your splines close in a nipple shape at the back of the head.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.