PDA

View Full Version : flickering in Radiosity


Julez4001
06-06-2003, 12:44 AM
Does the GI radiosity seting have to be at their optimum settings t o the flickering or shadow crawl. is there a good enough and no crap setting.

wgreenlee1
06-06-2003, 12:47 AM
I never tried animating with radiosity....
Mental Rays GI seems pretty stable in animation conditions though....
Have you tried baking or are conditions not practical for it?

Nikos
06-06-2003, 01:00 AM
I usually find settings between 2x6 to 4x12 to be suffient enough along with Enh. Low or Enh. Medium AA depending on what kind of surfaces there are in the scene.

A very smooth, even coloured, low reflective surface usually requires higher settings...

policarpo
06-06-2003, 01:07 AM
The crawl isn't as noticeable on textured surfaces...at least that's what i think...but hey...i love grain. i always add it in post anyhoo...:thumbsup:

and yah...what Nikos said. You rock NIKOS!!!!:buttrock:

twidup
06-06-2003, 01:27 AM
a small side note, if you are using an image for the radiocity, one way to reduce the grain is to scale a copy of the image down in photoshop.hdrshop before bring ing it into LW.

Mattoo
06-06-2003, 01:38 AM
Everyone's forgotten the most important thing...... never, ever, feed them after midnight- uh, no wait! I mean - the trick is dithered motion blur .

There's just been the same discussion on the Newtek forum just last week.

Dithered motion blur forces the renderer to compute a new radiosity solution for each pass. This sounds like it would take longer to render but it actually allows you to drop the sampling pretty low. Computing the solution for each pass is much faster than having to crank up the sampling.

webfox
06-06-2003, 01:41 AM
Who the heck is rendering motion blur that isn't dithered?

Okay.. c'mon.. fess up.

:shame:

Triple G
06-06-2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by webfox
Who the heck is rendering motion blur that isn't dithered?

Okay.. c'mon.. fess up.

:shame:

Ever watch an episode of Roughnecks? :D

webfox
06-06-2003, 02:01 AM
Ever watch an episode of Roughnecks?

Ever see your friends work 90 hour weeks under harsh conditions and using LW 5.6 for a shop that had insane deadlines? (Those guys ate for breakfast what the rest of us take a week to do.)

Besides, "Roughnecks" wasn't rendered in radiosity.

What hosed "Roughnecks" quality was the lack of field rendering. I remember some episodes that had cool-looking shots through the video guy's camera viewfinder. When asked how they made it look so clean, the answer was "We turned on field rendering." Checked a box... fixed the image. (took longer to render and that's why it was left out of the tight budget for most scenes) If you look at the motion that sucks, it's always where there's a lot of left to right motion - which is what field rendering was designed for.

Those guys deserve :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

I'm not mad or trying to piss on you. I just know a lot of those people, and they deserve respect for what they accomplished under bad conditions with software that wasn't even close to being ready for character animation.

Triple G
06-06-2003, 02:06 AM
Whoah....guess I hit a nerve...sorry, man!

Don't get me wrong...I thought they did a great job on Roughnecks, considering the circumstances that they had to deal with...in fact, I own 3 or 4 of the DVDs. It's fun stuff to watch, regardless. :thumbsup:

webfox
06-06-2003, 02:37 AM
Like I said, I'm not mad.

I happened to be in the same mail groups, irc channels, or bulletin boards as some of the Roughnecks crowd while they were working.

And, I was just trying to point out that a lot of the rendered quality was sacrificed simply due to budget and time constraint - a single checkbox could have fixed a lot of scenes, but they weren't allowed.

I know you didn't really mean anything by what you said. I've read your posts and don't think you're the type to really piss on others. I was just trying to let you know that, though they *could* have done things differently, there were forces outside of their control that made things turn out like they did.

Triple G
06-06-2003, 02:44 AM
No problem...I understand. No hard feelings. :beer:

intvSlams
06-06-2003, 05:33 AM
Turning off adaptive sampling seems to help a lot. Of course, render times go up quite a bit, but you can get away with fewer rays per evaluation to balance it out some.

CourtJester
06-06-2003, 08:12 PM
Are we talking about solely GI-lit scenes or those with regular lights and GI for the background lighting only?

In these scenes, 3x9 with shading noise reduction on, works most of the time, occasionally you can get away with 2x6,and 4x12 should be the max you need.

If GI is your main lighting, then I'd suggest twidup's idea.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 09:00 AM
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.