PDA

View Full Version : LW render engine comparison


Art9681
06-19-2003, 11:50 PM
I don't know if this is the right forum to post but what is the deal with Lightwave's render engine? It produces the most stunnind images I have ever seen. No other engine seems to produce such vibrant colors and overall "smoothness" if that makes sense. Is there some kind of technology it has that other engines don't? I heard somewhere that it was a floating point renderer, whatever that means. Can someone explain? Thanks :)

Array
06-20-2003, 03:55 AM
No. You would be surprised just how outdated (and slow) lightwave's rendering engine is. It is especially slow when simulating diffuse reflections, and it has problems with texture filtering.

That said, it's biggest strength lays in the fact that it has so many users, many of whom are very talented. That is why you are seeing so much great work on the lightwave gallery.

If you want to see top of the line renderers, check out www.pixar.com or www.mentalimages.com

edit:

this post really belonged in the lightwave forum. sorry if i caused any inconvenience by moving it.

takkun
06-20-2003, 04:19 AM
Yes, Lightwave's renderer creates some beautiful things, I think that's why we're all here, right? ("here" being the Lightwave forum) But it's not the best in the world, i.e. Pixar Renderman and Mental Images Mental Ray, Lightwave can create images on par with these renderers but lacks in some features and programmability which is understandable as these are stand-alone 3rd-party developed render engines.

E_Moelzer
06-20-2003, 04:22 AM
Hmm, I have to contradict Array as I feel that LWs renderengine aint as outdated as some people seem to believe.
I really like the shading in LW, which is some sort of instant good looking. I have yet to see another renderer that can give you that great quality with that little effort.
Having that said, ther are two areas where I think LWs renderer has to improve:
1. Speed. LW used to be one of the fastest renderers out there, but it aint anymore. While this is not that much a problem with normal raytracing, it is very noticeable when it comes to GI etc.
2. SDK. LWs renderer needs to become more open so 3rd parties can add special features more asily.
CU
Elmar

Array
06-20-2003, 04:40 AM
lightwave's speed isnt going to improve until they ditch finite element techniques for renderig diffuse light, and adapt a monte carlo technique such as photon mapping (as seen in prman and mentalray).

E_Moelzer
06-20-2003, 06:02 AM
LWs renderengine is already using Photonmapping, according to Arnie Cachelin.
CU
Elmar

Array
06-20-2003, 06:59 AM
Photon mapping only for caustics, which was extended for sub surface scattering VIA G2. Diffuse lighting in lightwave is still using finite element radiosity, which by all acounts is a VERY antiquated technique.

takkun
06-20-2003, 09:08 AM
Array, I'm always looking for more docs and papers on different rendering techniques. Could you post any links on finite element radiosity? That's the first time I've heard that term. Of course I'll also be searching via google.

Array
06-20-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by takkun
Array, I'm always looking for more docs and papers on different rendering techniques. Could you post any links on finite element radiosity? That's the first time I've heard that term. Of course I'll also be searching via google.

Finite element just refers to an algorithm which must tesselate a scene before computing the diffuse lighting solution. Radiosity and (Final) Gathering are both examples of this type of algorithm. Here are some articles which may help:

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article652.asp
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article653.asp

Nemoid
06-20-2003, 08:37 PM
I think IMHO that renderer is fine.

i think speed will improve in lw[8] and maybe also something regarding radiosity.
i think that for a stand alone app at this price level, rendering quite rocks . i have Maya 4,5 and its hard to do a good rendering in it. now the situation is changed with Mental Ray. i heard that some features are still lacking though, cause MR is better implemented in XSI.

what i like of Lw is that with a bunch of clear commands i have the control of the whole rendering, with a nice workflow.:thumbsup:

Jonathan
06-21-2003, 12:04 AM
Where Lightwave rendering shines however is in the licensing. Go out and buy 10 refurbished dells for less than 3K and set up a render farm at no extra cost for one seat of Lightwave.



I however touch up all of my sequences in aura and many people who do stills also touch them up in photoshop, that said today it's hard to tell was rendered in Lightwave and what was added in Post. I've found that 2D post effects can be far quicker and in many cases easier to set up, especially with good pixel tracking.

wgreenlee1
06-21-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Nemoid
I think IMHO that renderer is fine.

i think speed will improve in lw[8] and maybe also something regarding radiosity.
i think that for a stand alone app at this price level, rendering quite rocks . i have Maya 4,5 and its hard to do a good rendering in it. now the situation is changed with Mental Ray. i heard that some features are still lacking though, cause MR is better implemented in XSI.

what i like of Lw is that with a bunch of clear commands i have the control of the whole rendering, with a nice workflow.:thumbsup:


I dont think thats the case.

Newtek added all of those "bounces" to Lightwave radiosity renders and for what?
Nothing.
Nothing over 3 bounces really makes a differance.

Everyone keeps bringing up the MR licences debate.
You could render alot more frames with MR in the same amount of time...a lot more.

As far as MR being complicated is really untrue also.
There are savable parameters for when you do find the settings you wish to use.

Anyone thats even used MR knows comparing the two is still really down to the licencing issue and only that.

SplineGod
06-21-2003, 05:09 AM
Lightwaves renderer is just fine. Works great and has done so for a long time. DId it suddenly break?
Many places dont care because they dont do beauty passes in the rendering software and do much of the work in post.
Its funny but I know many people who do have direct experience with MR and Lightwave and feel that LW holds up quite well and exceeds MR in many cases and situations.
In the end if LW doesnt cut it for anyone theres nothing to prevent anyone from getting mental ray. :)

leigh
06-21-2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Jonathan
I however touch up all of my sequences in aura and many people who do stills also touch them up in photoshop, that said today it's hard to tell was rendered in Lightwave and what was added in Post. I've found that 2D post effects can be far quicker and in many cases easier to set up, especially with good pixel tracking.

When working in studios, stuff that comes off the render farm ALWAYS goes to post - for all intents and purposes, you'll generally never see anything in a film or commercial that has not been altered in some way in post.
Whether it's colour correction, grading, or whatever, renders (using any renderer, I might add) are just not going to be 100% when they roll off the farm. It just doesn't happen. That's why all studios fork out the cash to buy good compositing software ;)

As for the debate on LW's renderer - yep, it would indeed be nice to have it a bit faster. But doesn't someone say that here every single week? I think it kinda goes without saying.
It would also be nice if LW's renderer was not limited to Phong shading.

At any rate, Mental Rays rendering is niiiiiiiiiiiiice :drool:

Shade01
06-21-2003, 05:18 AM
If anything, I think this is a nod to NewTek for being ahead of the game with the renderer, that people are saying this only after 2 or 3 updates have passed for other software. Here's hoping the trend continues with 8!

Jonathan
06-21-2003, 07:33 AM
If ever I was in the market for a renderer, I would definitely go for that ArtsVPS PURE P1800 PCI render card running Renderman. It's nice and compact, (as far as fitting into a machine, It's really a monster of a card!), it's hardware driven and its damned fast. It's a pretty good price at 3.5K. There's also a 3rd party Lightwave pipeline but I don't know of any problems with it. I've not been in the market for a renderer and I first found that in a magazine when was looking at the render drive. I don't have 15K to toss in on a piece of equipment like that, but that PURE card is within my budget and the fact that it fits inside of a machine is a plus for someone like me with limited space. They say it's like 12 comps in 1 computers.

Array
06-21-2003, 07:49 AM
my school has a few of those in a lab. they dont run renderman as in pixar's PRMan, they can just render .rib files. theres also the issue of them using some weird format (i.e. other than SL) for shaders.

my professor was talking to me about the possibility of doing an independant study and converting rewriting some of his shaders so they work with the cards.

Nemoid
06-21-2003, 09:15 AM
I d'dn't really compared MR to Lw engine.
they are so different. i said that for being a built -in rendering engine, Lw renderer is good. the comparison has to be made with other built in renderers wich i know are not so excellent.
for example, some time ago i heard that May 4.5 built in rendering can forget shadows. Forget shadows??? i was shoked!!
how can a rendering engine have the possibility to forget calculating shadows!!?? and this was said from a Maya demo artist not from some noob.

the amount of postproduction job, i think its inverse proporional to the quality of built - in rendering.

post is required always and its nice u can rework images not redoing the rendering. also its strategic, because there are a lot of things u can do in post with 2D animated images or using 3D layers that save time in obtaining your final image.

but the more quality the initial image is, the best results u have in post.

Krix
09-22-2003, 04:09 PM
Lightwave renderer is good and stable! And the scanline algorythm working well with the raytrace functions what not too many renderers can do. You have to understand the way it's working and then you are able to optimize your rendering to get acceptable rendering times.

"Radiosity and (Final) Gathering are both examples of this type of algorithm."

Hey Array! Radiosity is a term for indirect illumination, and final gathering is a technik to achieve it. Final Gathering is a modified (optimized) Monte Carlo approach. Lightwave renderer using Monte Carlo algorythm and has it's own way to optimize it, and reduce the rendertime. You would be suprised how fast it can render scenes with radiosity compare to other renderers. You just have to find the way.

Cheers,
Krix

juanjgon
09-22-2003, 05:12 PM
Some aclarations about global ilumination ...

As i undestand computing indirect ilumiation is called "Global ilumination" as generics ... actually there is tree basic methoths to compute global ilumination:

* Radiosity, was the first one to be implemented. His best example is Lighscape. It consist in compute GI solution dividing geometry into finite elements to cumpute GI in each vertex of it. It is pure pre-computed solution, so when rendered scene could be displayed even in real time using simple Gouroaud or Phong shading.

* Monte carlo, who is a brute force method. A well know example of this render is Arnold. Lightwave use this method and Final Gathering in Mental Ray too ... but there is a lot of optimization algoriths to compute only relevant information to make this method a lot faster ... in core, Cinema 4D, Final Render, etc. uses this method too ... but a lot optimized. To compute GI renderer compute indirect ilumunation in each pixel of image sampling surroind it to "see" what affect to this point.

* Photon Mapping, who is a phisical aproach to reality, where fotons are fired from light source and compute his traveling across scene up to be absorbed or reflected by surfaces. This method is pre-computed, like Radiosity, so solution could be saved and render is faster ... even real time. His best example of implementation is Mental Ray and near all caustics renderers in any package, included LW.

Regards,

Krix
09-22-2003, 05:37 PM
Yes Juan! You are right! I misunderstood that line. Radiosity can also refer to certain specific historical algorithm that can be used to calculate diffuse reflected light. But in these days I think radiosity is about saying indirect illumination too with another word. Using the work as the Radiosity Effect. But on the other hand current Radiosity algorithms are a "little bit" different than the original one, and using lots of optimization technics.


Cheers,
Krix

juanjgon
09-22-2003, 06:03 PM
Hi Krix ....

Yes, usually word "radiosity" is used for all GI algorithms, perhaps because it is the first one.

I want to put one question in air. What algorithm do you think is better to be implemented in LW ???

I think that photon mapping is nothing magical that is the final answer to GI ... in fact in Mental Ray usually Final Gathering (who is someting like Montecarlo radisity in LW with one bounce ... but a lot faster) is used to complement photon mapping solution, because this algorithm has huge limitations ... needs a lot of memory, only work well in interior images, dont resolve well small areas like corners and so on ...

From my point of view best implementation of GI solution comes from adaptative Montecarlo algorithm ... perhaps Cinema 4D and Cebas Final render (who uses equal method ... in fact i know that Cebas make C4D GI solution ...) is one of best aproach. LW is not far to use it ... need good sampling optimizartion and faster ray tracing core ...

Other ideas to improve actual LW GI solution:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11291

Regards,

CIM
09-22-2003, 08:42 PM
It's not the quality of LW's radiosity that is the problem, it's the speed. LW's horribly-slow rendering speed is most noticable on indoor renders. It can easily take many multiple hours to get a decent quality render, while other renderers (Mental Ray, for example) might take only 5 - 10 minutes to get a superior quality render.

Larrikin
09-22-2003, 08:47 PM
Depth of Field sucks.
Until they fix that I don't think you can say Lightwave has a good renderer.

leigh
09-22-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Larrikin
Depth of Field sucks.
Until they fix that I don't think you can say Lightwave has a good renderer.

:surprised

I don't see how you can say an entire rendering engine isn't goodsimply because it's DOF isn't what you'd tink is up to scratch :shrug:

At any rate, you can get plugins like XDOF if you hate LW's native DOF. Alternatively you can do what I do - render with a Z-depth buffer and do the DOF in post.

tburbage3
09-22-2003, 10:15 PM
The biggest single addition I would like to see to the LW rendering pipeline at this point is support for vertex and pixel shaders, which will allow some very processor-intensive work to be off-loaded to the graphics hardware.

I really wish the LW team could begin to phase in this support with v8. I say 'phase in' because only very recent gfx cards provide a high level of support for these, so it would have to be a 'use the capability if the installed card/drivers support it' deal for a while.

Maya, MAX, and XSI already have some level of support for vertex and pixel shaders although I don't know to what extent they currently take advantage of them.

With regard to LW's renderer being a 'black box', Worley's G2 documentation does make it clear there are alot of aspects of LW's internals it can't directly access, but I think it is still worth noting that products like G2, and Evasion's cool plugins were able to get the job done.

Array
09-22-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Krix
Lightwave renderer is good and stable! And the scanline algorythm working well with the raytrace funktions what not too many renderers can do. You have to understand the way it's working and then you are able to optimize your rendering to get acceptable rendering times.

"Radiosity and (Final) Gathering are both examples of this type of algorithm."

Hey Array! Radiosity is a term for indirect illumination, and final gathering is a technik to achieve it. Final Gathering is a modified (optimized) Monte Carlo approach. Lightwave renderer using Monte Carlo algorythm and has it's own way to optimize it, and reduce the rendertime. You would be suprised how fast it can render scenes with radiosity compare to other renderers. You just have to find the way.

Cheers,
Krix

no.....radiosity SPECIFICALLY describes an algorithm, not an effect. the effect which is ATTEMPTED to be solved is that of global illumination. Dont forget that INITIALLY raytracing was invented as an attempt to solve the global illumination problem.

Cindy M. Goral,Kenneth E. Torrance, Donald P. Greenberg, and Bennett Battaile described the radiosity algorithm in their 1984 paper entitled "Modeling the interaction of light between diffuse surfaces".

Basically radiosity works by tesselating the scene into many subpatches, and then calculates a light's influence on a surface by determining how far away a subpatch is from a light. This way, you get a smooth, diffuse, lighting solution.

There are several reasons why radiosity is considered antiquated. First of all, rendertime is directly proportional to the amount of geometry in the scene. The more polygons you have, the longer it takes to render, and the more memory you need to use per frame. Second, radiosity only solves the diffuse lighting in a scene. This is why people need to integrate radiosity with algorithms like raytracing to calculate reflections/reflections, as well as specular highlights. Third, radiosity is very dependant on mesh topology. If you have a dirty mesh, itll show in that your shadows will be skewed.

Final gathering, on the other hand, does NOT calculate illumination based on lights in a scene (although in mentalray one can combine data from photon maps with a final gather solution). Basically the way final gathering works is that it also makes subpatches in a scene (which is why it is categorized as a finite element algorithm along with radiosity) but instead of calculating a patche's proximity to a light, final gathering calculates the color of a pixel by sampling the color of pixels around it. Essentially final gathering is an easy way to calculate color bleeding.

If you dont believe me, open up xsi/maya and make a plane, and around the plane make a sphere. turn off all the lights in the scene, turn up the luminosity of the sphere, and turn on finalgathering. what you have made is a basic skylight.

Array
09-22-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by juanjgon
Some aclarations about global ilumination ...

As i undestand computing indirect ilumiation is called "Global ilumination" as generics ... actually there is tree basic methoths to compute global ilumination:

* Radiosity, was the first one to be implemented. His best example is Lighscape. It consist in compute GI solution dividing geometry into finite elements to cumpute GI in each vertex of it. It is pure pre-computed solution, so when rendered scene could be displayed even in real time using simple Gouroaud or Phong shading.

* Monte carlo, who is a brute force method. A well know example of this render is Arnold. Lightwave use this method and Final Gathering in Mental Ray too ... but there is a lot of optimization algoriths to compute only relevant information to make this method a lot faster ... in core, Cinema 4D, Final Render, etc. uses this method too ... but a lot optimized. To compute GI renderer compute indirect ilumunation in each pixel of image sampling surroind it to "see" what affect to this point.

* Photon Mapping, who is a phisical aproach to reality, where fotons are fired from light source and compute his traveling across scene up to be absorbed or reflected by surfaces. This method is pre-computed, like Radiosity, so solution could be saved and render is faster ... even real time. His best example of implementation is Mental Ray and near all caustics renderers in any package, included LW.

Regards,

final render is a photon mapping solution, as is mentalray, brazil, and vray.

NanoGator
09-22-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Leigh
Whether it's colour correction, grading, or whatever, renders (using any renderer, I might add) are just not going to be 100% when they roll off the farm.

That's true of film as well. Guess realiity isn't a high enough quality renderer. ;)

Halsu
09-23-2003, 12:07 AM
I dunno, i don't think LightWave's radiosity is THAT slow...

You certainly won't need to render hours to get decent radiosity solution in most cases.

The attached image was rendered on 1.6 ghz machine, in 1 minutes 57 seconds, with two radiosity bounces, at 375*500 (i had to rescale to get the file to be under 20 kb), not perfect, but passable.

When you go for perfection, well, it is computing-intensive stuff then i guess ;-)

Array
09-23-2003, 01:06 AM
it's not lightwave's radiosity which is slow, but radiosity in general. there are other, faster and more elegant, solutions to the global illumination problem.

NanoGator
09-23-2003, 01:10 AM
One of the strongest qualites a 3D artist can have is an understanding of how light works. Array is right, radiosity is slow and there are better methods. When you understand what the goal is and how the renderer works, then practical solutions start to present themselves. Area lights and projected images can go a long way towards ariving at the goal: a pretty 2d image. ;)

CIM
09-23-2003, 01:29 AM
LW's renderer, as a whole, is the problem; not just it's implementation of radiosity. Due to it's older, more brute force algorithms, the result is unusually slow renders when quality is involved.

As I've said before, LW has issues with the quality vs. speed ratio. Sure, you can get great quality renders out of LW, but at a real cost usually.

Halsu
09-23-2003, 07:48 AM
...one good method for (especially exterior) GI is to use spinning lights / light arrays.

Most images in THIS GALLERY (http://www.kolumbus.fi/erkki.halkka/plugpak/PlugPak_Gallery_index.html) use this technique.

CIM
09-23-2003, 08:15 AM
I've never liked spinning lights. I generally just use a sphere of many Spotlights or good, regular lighting in LW.

Halsu
09-23-2003, 09:13 AM
Learn to like them. You can divide the amount of needed lights by anti-aliasing passes - i.e. with medium AA, you get the same result with 10 lights that you would get with 90 lights without using spinning light trick (in practice, the quality yet doubles when using dithered motion blur).

Sterk
09-23-2003, 09:27 AM
Why just to talking about,let's see the difference on "real"scene.
Here it is:

LW:

Radiosity type : Interpolated
Intensity : 170%
Rays Per Evaluation : 6x18
Indirect bounces : 3
Tolerance : 0.001
Minimum Evaluation Spacing : 5 mm

Render time-51 minutes

Sterk
09-23-2003, 09:34 AM
Here is LW render:

Sterk
09-23-2003, 09:36 AM
And here is FinalRender, render time 5 minutes.

d3d
09-23-2003, 10:24 AM
For arch-vis walkthru's light arrays are a lot faster than spinning lights if shadow mapped spots are used. It's much faster to calculate 100 shadow maps only once for the whole animation (with cache shadowmaps on) than to calculate 20 shadow maps for every AA pass and every frame.

Nemoid
09-23-2003, 10:54 AM
Ok Lw rendering has a old code, but its still the best built in renderer of many programs. the results you get with a few touches are very good, while in other apps you have to do a huge work to obtain great results.
the rendering code needs a rewrite, as well as lights, because there are some probs about them ( see in Nt feture request forum) but saying that its crap its not exact.

thinhs like DOf are best made with plugins like the one that came out few days ago, or, even better, in post production, where you can control all the quality of your žmages shadows, light, and other channels.

I hope that Nt will solve some probs and rewrite some part of te code for a faster and faster rendering, and I think they will do it in the near future, but an interesting think would be implement
Mental Ray, as a plugin we could buy or not.

most apps implemented it in recent times and that's why now
(but only now) they have a good rendering.

P.S. beware. MR is fully and greatly implemented only from XSI.

Halsu
09-23-2003, 12:39 PM
Hey sterk, could you send me your scene / object files? I'd like to have a go at optimizing your scene in LightWave...

My e-mail is erkki.halkka@kolumbus.fi

Jonathan
09-23-2003, 01:51 PM
Sorry, but I'm simply tired of buying new machines and equipment to add to my garden and dealing with network overhead and security. This is the primary reason why I'm looking towards other faster rendering solutions and if I have to go out and get Max just so I can take advantage of Brazil then that's what I'll do but the case has been made. You can complain about $1000 extra per node with these newer renders such as Mental Ray, but what they are offering in speed and quality far outweights the cost when it takes 10+ machines running lightwave under screamernet to compare when doing animation.

Right now though I'm working with Lightnet and learning to convert shaders for the PURE3D card. If all works out, I'll be buying that card which is renderman compliant and very very fast.

LNT
09-23-2003, 01:56 PM
I guess it all depends on how you use it,just like with any other tool


one can go to such lenghts as to use a chainsaw to cut a slice of bread :shrug:

the render below took about 12 mins @ 1280x960 resolution
and the polycount is at least a thousand times higher than sterk's room
not to mention handling of procedurals and reflections

http://www.geocities.com/lnt_lu/s2000.txt

samartin
09-23-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Sterk
And here is FinalRender, render time 5 minutes.

That is damn impressive for a 5 min render, but are you using a P4 or AMD ??? I ask cos' GI is optimised for the SSE2 instruction set...

sebek27
09-23-2003, 02:02 PM
cool LNT ... how did you do the honda logo in the front ? i 'm thinking of drawing it in illustrator then importing you ?

LNT
09-23-2003, 02:34 PM
put the backdrop image in modeler and trace it over with SubDs,you won't be sorry

just so you can bend the logo if need be ;)

CIM
09-23-2003, 09:04 PM
Ok Lw rendering has a old code, but its still the best built in renderer of many programs.

Actually, XSI's renderer is by far the best built-in renderer.

the results you get with a few touches are very good, while in other apps you have to do a huge work to obtain great results.

If you actually know how to use the renderers, you can do just as good work, just as easily in any program.

minus
09-23-2003, 09:28 PM
The only renderer I have any real jealosy for is V-Ray. I've played with Brazil... and I've used Maya's Mental Ray integration on a friends workstation. But V-Ray... as far as speed vs. quality... I think owns. Like anything though... you have to really know how to use all renderers before you can judge them. It's really unfortunate that most 3rd party renderers start out on Max. I mean.. I know 3D Studio Viz is big for architechural visualization and all that.. but I would think that the 3DS market would be by now saturated / unforgiving for any new render engines. I know LW's not exactly the most open for 3rd party render integration.... and that is unfortunate... but I do like the output of LW... and I've compensated for speed by buying faster computers.

1 3.2 Ghz P4 (bought last week).
dual 2Ghz Athlon machine.. (dual cpu's help with radiosity with nearly a 1 to 1 ratio.).
And my laptop aswell 1.8Ghz Dell.

At least there have been attempts at speeding LW's radiosity up... the P4 SSE2 optimizations are really well done.

takkun
09-24-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Sterk
Why just to talking about,let's see the difference on "real"scene.
Here it is:

LW:

Radiosity type : Interpolated
Intensity : 170%
Rays Per Evaluation : 6x18
Indirect bounces : 3
Tolerance : 0.001
Minimum Evaluation Spacing : 5 mm

Render time-51 minutes
You're render times seemed unecessarily long, so I thought I would attempt to recreate your scene and try for myself. Here's my settings:

Radiosity type : Monte Carlo
Intensity : 300%
Rays Per Evaluation : 4x12
Indirect bounces : 2
Ambient Intensity: 15%
Ambient Color: 202 228 255
Antialiasing: Low
Render time: 18 minutes
Rendered on a P4 2.4 GHz 1GB RAM

This isn't as fast as your Final Render example but it's a lot faster then your Lightwave render. Lightwave's renderer is slower then V-ray and others but not as slow as you portrayed with your example.

minus
09-24-2003, 09:04 PM
Can you zip that scene up? -- I'm betting it could be further optimized yet. For example... I don't know what a 300% radiosity is going to do as opposed to just using the floating point render output and adjusting the black point. Though Radiosity intensity increases actually do not increase render times. Just light intensity... but AA settings could be adjusted aswell.

takkun
09-24-2003, 09:35 PM
Here it is- hey, maybe Sterk could post his scene, too. hint hint, wink wink:

Nemoid
09-24-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by CIM
Actually, XSI's renderer is by far the best built-in renderer.



If you actually know how to use the renderers, you can do just as good work, just as easily in any program.

I don't agree: In Lw you can do all with a few touches cause you find quite all you need in the rendering options in Maya, for example all is complicated with the built in rendering, especiallyi 4.5. also I heard from an expert Maya user, that the built in renderer can have some error and forget the shadows in some cases.forget the shadows in some cases? this is madness. Max and Cinema's renderers are fast, but not so good as Lw.

the photoreal quality of Lw renderer is very good.can be greatly enhanced but its good. and XSI has MR wich is surely very good but very different from a normal built in renderer.
and the price?

Nt will surely work to the Lw renderer to make it faster and more accurate in many things, so I see no prob with Lw rendering.

CIM
09-24-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Nemoid
I don't agree: In Lw you can do all with a few touches cause you find quite all you need in the rendering options in Maya, for example all is complicated with the built in rendering, especiallyi 4.5. also I heard from an expert Maya user, that the built in renderer can have some error and forget the shadows in some cases.forget the shadows in some cases? this is madness. Max and Cinema's renderers are fast, but not so good as Lw.

the photoreal quality of Lw renderer is very good.can be greatly enhanced but its good. and XSI has MR wich is surely very good but very different from a normal built in renderer.
and the price?

Nt will surely work to the Lw renderer to make it faster and more accurate in many things, so I see no prob with Lw rendering.

Like I said, if you actually know how to use the program, you won't have a problem.

Just because LW is simple doesn't mean it's better. In fact, in alot of cases it's worse.

comanche
09-24-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Nemoid
Max and Cinema's renderers are fast, but not so good as Lw.

What do you call "not so good"? Could you explain it further? There are different shading types in Cinema, great radiosity, (volume) caustics, unbeatable AA and superb multipass features. What's the advantage of LW's current renderer?

Andreas

Miyazaki
09-24-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Nemoid
Max and Cinema's renderers are fast, but not so good as Lw.

Plz tell me why Cinemas renderer is not so good as LW. In some areas, like GI and antialiasing it overtrumps LW renderer, not to mention speed issues. It has a modern architecture, build upon cebas final render. And it`s regulary updated by maxon. So i don`t agree. And yes, XSI has, in my opinion, the most sophisticated native renderer. That should not implicate that it`s the best solution for everyone.

takkun
09-24-2003, 10:16 PM
I really like Cinema 4d's renderer, but what's the story on it? Is it an integrated Final Render Stage 1 or Stage 0, does it have all the features of Final Render?

Right now, the fastest GI renderer I've seen is V-Ray, but I'm not about to shell out $3,500 for 3ds max and $800 for V-Ray.

Miyazaki
09-24-2003, 10:20 PM
No, it`s NOT final render, but has a modificated final render core/code from cebas. Cebas developed some parts of the renderer, Maxon modificated and build it into the core of Cinema.

Krix
09-25-2003, 03:50 AM
Hi,

I heard from some co-worker that Maya has got the best connection to mentalray at the moment. We were using XSI/mentalray in production and I remember that he had to export every frame of the scene in MI format and render it separately, because of memory leaking...etc. Actually he was using 2.0 something so I'm sure that they fixed lots of bugs. But actually what I think there is still a limitation of the XSI/mentalray connection, that you cannot use 3D procedural bump. Not without projection. You can apply procedural bump along X,Y,Z and UV. And one of the biggest advantages of procedural textures that you don't have to project them. And I remember that he wanted to use that feature lots of times, and he came here to the softimage forum and were asking about the whole thing. And all what he got were ideas about how to get around the problem. But nobody knew why was(is) not implemented. No anykind of problem like this from the maya side.

As a shaderwriter mentioned in one thread long time ago;
"Most good hybrid renderers like mentalray, prman and lightwave, can mix rendering scanline with raytracing within samples even. Bad ones can't or have horrible limitations (maya comes to mind)."


Cheers,
Krix

CIM
09-25-2003, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Krix
Hi,

I heard from some co-worker that Maya has got the best connection to mentalray at the moment. We were using XSI/mentalray in production and I remember that he had to export every frame of the scene in MI format and render it separately, because of memory leaking...etc. Actually he was using 2.0 something so I'm sure that they fixed lots of bugs. But actually what I think there is still a limitation of the XSI/mentalray connection, that you cannot use 3D procedural bump. Not without projection. You can apply procedural bump along X,Y,Z and UV. And one of the biggest advantages of procedural textures that you don't have to project them. And I remember that he wanted to use that feature lots of times, and he came here to the softimage forum and were asking about the whole thing. And all what he got were ideas about how to get around the problem. But nobody knew why was(is) not implemented. No anykind of problem like this from the maya side.

As a shaderwriter mentioned in one thread long time ago;
"Most good hybrid renderers like mentalray, prman and lightwave, can mix rendering scanline with raytracing within samples even. Bad ones can't or have horrible limitations (maya comes to mind)."


Cheers,
Krix

Actually, Maya has one of the worst connections to MR. It's decent though, but has far to go. On the other hand, XSI has the best, clearly because Softimage has been dealing with MR for years and wrote XSI around it. All other packages are trying to connect to MR only, not integrate.

Miyazaki
09-25-2003, 07:50 AM
CIM is right. XSI is the only one with a shared memory architecture to MR.

Nemoid
09-25-2003, 03:14 PM
Like I said, if you actually know how to use the program, you won't have a problem.

Just because LW is simple doesn't mean it's better. In fact, in alot of cases it's worse.


What do you call "not so good"? Could you explain it further? There are different shading types in Cinema, great radiosity, (volume) caustics, unbeatable AA and superb multipass features. What's the advantage of LW's current renderer?

Andreas

its not question of problems,its true that if you know your app you always find the right way, though the maya 4.5 built in režnderer have this shadow prob indeed. trust me, the user
wich said this, made an entire short with maya and really had that problem to solve.

also, a good photographer very expert in print and all related items simply said that the Maya rendering was quite flat, while he loves Lw renderer photoreal quality. the light quality.

Max and Cinemas rendering engines are fast, have good things but the light quality and the shading have not the photographic quality of Lw rendering, and you have to work hard in post to enhance images. really see Lot of Robots DVD and watch how many post that guy had to do to obtain great images.

this being said its clear that as i said Lw rendering is old. many things have to be reworked, but Jeez, saying that its crap is madness IMO. its a good basis and when Nt will work on it the distance between Lw good rendering and Cinema, Max and Maya built in renderers will grow.

CIM
09-25-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Nemoid
its not question of problems,its true that if you know your app you always find the right way, though the maya 4.5 built in režnderer have this shadow prob indeed. trust me, the user
wich said this, made an entire short with maya and really had that problem to solve.

also, a good photographer very expert in print and all related items simply said that the Maya rendering was quite flat, while he loves Lw renderer photoreal quality. the light quality.

Max and Cinemas rendering engines are fast, have good things but the light quality and the shading have not the photographic quality of Lw rendering, and you have to work hard in post to enhance images. really see Lot of Robots DVD and watch how many post that guy had to do to obtain great images.

this being said its clear that as i said Lw rendering is old. many things have to be reworked, but Jeez, saying that its crap is madness IMO. its a good basis and when Nt will work on it the distance between Lw good rendering and Cinema, Max and Maya built in renderers will grow.

So, you're saying that you're relying on what other ppl. say about software to judge it? That's just silly. If you want to judge software, actually learn it. I'm guessing if I said Poser was the best program out there, you'd believe that too.

I don't think anyone's saying that LW's renderer is crap. But, clearly it's far from being the best. Everyone's integrating Mental Ray--a renderer designed and used in feature films--so it's silly to compare the two.

madrenderman
09-25-2003, 10:07 PM
I start to render with sculpt4d on amiga 1989, during last years i work with many render engine:

real 3d (interesting raytracing engine which render olso nurbs without tripling like every other render).
Lightwave3d (from 3.5 to actual 7.5)
renderman
Mental ray (maya 4.5/5)

during these expereince i try and deassemble many work and engine, my 2 cent are
except renderman, i think lw is a good, fast and versatile render engine.

there are many misanderstanding about lw engine from generic user. often derived from bad tutorial on net or not complete understanding of engine working.

lw engine is fast, if you know it and know how to use it (this is real for every software and render engine)

a lot of factory bought lw for it's render engine, which offer you quality, speed, low cost on renderfarm.
Dna (jimmy neutron), Digital Domain, ILM, and more

try to find in other render engine a true complete 3d motion blur, deep antialias at different level, 96 bit color buffer, 32 bit of depth buffer (if you work with postpro software you can know the difference between a poor 8bit buffer and rich 32 bit smooth buffer).

try to find another render engine which not ask you to deassemble and rebuild most of your render in post pro session.

best thing is start to understand and know most of possible of our tools, if something wont work, don't stop and change, try to understand why won'work.

And remember that not all tutorial from net, magazine, or other can be the truth, often you can find tutorial which write wrong thing and take you on bad way.

try, retry, and more.
have a nice day.

Nemoid
09-26-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by CIM
So, you're saying that you're relying on what other ppl. say about software to judge it? That's just silly. If you want to judge software, actually learn it. I'm guessing if I said Poser was the best program out there, you'd believe that too.

I don't think anyone's saying that LW's renderer is crap. But, clearly it's far from being the best. Everyone's integrating Mental Ray--a renderer designed and used in feature films--so it's silly to compare the two.

1) I rely on experienced people, and personal experience too
2) I cannot believe that you can only think Poser is the best 3D app. this can make me only laugh!!!
there is no best app out there, nor Maya, Max and XSI too
every app have weak points and strong points, Lw too.
3) I compared Lw rendering engine, with built in rendering engine of other apps. MR is another thing and the fact of the recent integration in other apps( but for wich price?) demonstrates that the previous built in rendering was not so good before.
4) thx madrenderman you said better what i meant!:scream:

p.s. I will stop here. don't want to start a flame about Lw rendering and I hope to see less people complaining about their software, while people in Nt is working hard to give them a better app.

Dreamwave
09-26-2003, 08:11 PM
I don't have much the compare, so I don't know how outdated LW is...but is it going to improve with version 8?

Remi
09-26-2003, 08:41 PM
How about some integration with spreadsheet and screamernet:shrug:

Saeed
09-27-2003, 02:17 PM
i think the blochi scene is good scene for compare renderers.
My work:
http://www.cgtechniques.com/lightboard/show.php?id=356&PHPSESSID=ae1c9a5cc16917b21c6cf87c7bcbc033

Others:
http://www.cgtechniques.com/lightboard/show_list.php?free=16&showcase=1

what are you think?

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 11:00 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.