Render Layers

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08 August 2012   #16
Oh, Patrick, tell your boss that Lennart told to get you your rise, bonus, extra bananas or what ever they pay you. Your tuts at Cineversity just
sets the new standard all categories. I'm not kidding, Maxon US that guy
you must take care of.

Cheers
Lennart
__________________
MSA | OSX | xfiles ...Cinema4D Tools
 
Old 08 August 2012   #17
Originally Posted by chi: For MAXON you probably have a much smaller userbase that wants the feature.


Would you agree that this is because they don't even know such a feature exists? I don't see how someone who has used or known about it, wouldn't want it.

Originally Posted by chi: Make some fake email addresses for the pets and get them to request it too


Sure, I could submit a hundred emails requesting it, but I doubt Maxon wouldn't check the ip address and notice that its just me. Need to raise awareness of the feature and convince a larger group of people to submit in a legitimate way. And I only know of about 5 people I could convince to take the time to submit. The others are too "busy" for that kind of stuff.

I imagine I share the same feeling of insignificance as most do when using the form as it is, which deters me away from submitting as often as I should. What Maxon and all other software companies should do for their feature suggestion site is have a list of all submissions thus far to let people see whats already been suggested and then vote them up or down. And then if everybody knows about it and still doesn't want it, I would have to shut up and move to a different 3D package. Because I can't do what I'm doing right now forever and still keep my sanity.

Last edited by fusepilot : 08 August 2012 at 11:06 PM.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #18
Originally Posted by fusepilot: Need to raise awareness of the feature and convince a larger group of people to submit in a legitimate way. And I only know of about 5 people I could convince to take the time to submit. The others are too "busy" for that kind of stuff.


Here is your chance, you've got the attention.
Programming is the easiest thing in the world.
It's basically along row of: if else if else if else….

So if you want to have the same functionality as an existing app,
someone's gotto have that app or understand what you are looking for
and specify each and every step, what each "if" "else" should do.
Man hours… however you look at it.

I'm truly not trying to be daft or anything, I promise.
But -one- single specification does a million times more
than a hundred "I want this" in anyones mail box.

Cheers
Lennart
__________________
MSA | OSX | xfiles ...Cinema4D Tools
 
Old 08 August 2012   #19
Originally Posted by tcastudios: Here is your chance, you've got the attention.


Who's attention? And my chance to do what? The only thing I can think of doing is to continue discussing this topic to keep it at the top of the forum so more people see it and submit feature requests for it.

Originally Posted by tcastudios: Programming is the easiest thing in the world.
It's basically along row of: if else if else if else….


Surely your joking but I don't get the joke.

Originally Posted by tcastudios: But -one- single specification does a million times more
than a hundred "I want this" in anyones mail box.


What do you mean by specification? If I understand you correctly, then the specification is Maya's render layers.

Sorry, not trying to be dense, but I just didn't understand your comment very well.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #20
Originally Posted by LucentDreams: a maxon employee will see this, go and check the suggestion database, see it is there, maybe make a peep on it there, and it will continue as the management/development teams see fit.

Official submissions by you guys is the one thing that gives them a little more quantitative numbers on people requesting it, where as having an employee or tester point it out won't do a whole lot more.

Yepp.
And to add to it, it's of no consequence if a single Maxon employee like me agrees or disagrees with that suggestion (actually there are more suggestions that i don't want to see beeing implemented than the other way around). All suggestions are part of the information base used by Maxon to decide where to put our development ressources.
I made it a habit to not comment on specific feature wishes on the forums since people tend to expect i can do something about it or that me or any other employee seeing a thread about something will ensure that it gets implemented. So please, don't PM or mail anyone from Maxon with suggestions, there is no way for him or her to do more than you can do by submitting a suggestion.

Just for example this thread on render layers doesn't tell anyone at Maxon anything realy new. We know of the advantages of renderlayers. The suggestions sent help us to determine actual need and might influence the priorities. Keep in mind that every feature we implement comes at a price. The obvious price is the development costs, the not so obvious price is that other stuff will not be implemented since the available ressources are already spent. Chances are that something you personally want isn't beeing done because we have something in the works of which we think that it will be of more advantage to the users.
And yes, before anyone suggestes that, we already increase ressources as good as possible and have done so since Maxon exists. Maxon, and especially the development team, has grown constantly all the time.
So please, keep on suggesting what you want to see, but please also make the effort and think through what you realy want and how you want it.

Cheers
Björn
__________________
- www.bonkers.de -
The views expressed on this post are my personal opinions and do not represent the views of my employer.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #21
Bjorn brings up a good point, besides the fact that there are better routes, what you guys think a good implementation of an Idea is and what I think a good implementation of an idea is could be very different. This case is a prime example where yes I want a render layer type system, but I've seen a few people refer to the atrocity that is Maya's render layer system and would for one hugely oppose that type of implementation.
__________________
"Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -Leo Tolstoy
Kai Pedersen
 
Old 08 August 2012   #22
For now, I'd settle for the very basic ability to custom name passes.

"Object Buffer 1", "Object Buffer 2", etc. is so un-userfriendly and is a nightmare when trying to composite a seemingly endless stream of object buffers and layers.

I know there are other priorities, but this implementation has been there since render passes were introduced.

I'm sure some sort of render layer setup would drastically change our workflow for the better. I'm not suggesting one like Maya.

Creating a system that is flexible and can scale from easy and streamlined to complex and powerful is the key in my opinion.

I'm looking forward to seeing if and how this develops in future versions.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #23
Could someone explain for those of us who've never experienced it what Render Layers renders look like?

Im guessing it renders any objects you specify on a black background so you can comp them all in AE using screen blending mode with no need for alphas/buffers? Is that right?

Or is it more a case of Diffuse, AO, Shadow passes for specified objects only?

Last edited by lewisrowe : 08 August 2012 at 09:52 PM.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #24
if it's anything like the Blender implementation (which I think is actually very good) then you are mostly correct - the main difference being that there is much more transparent control over exactly which passes are exported and in what combinations.

Also if I'm not mistaken there are easy ways to render out just the background or just object A, for example.

I actually think we're getting there, slowly - the WPP is one major step in the right direction.
__________________
Fat Free Media | Twitter
 
Old 08 August 2012   #25
Originally Posted by lewisrowe: Could someone explain for those of us who've never experienced it what Render Layers renders look like?


Say I wanted to composite an apple slowly fading up to full visibility on a table in After Effects. To do this correctly you need to render the scene at least twice to get a render of just the apple and then just the table separately. An object buffer on the apple wont work in this case because when you apply the buffer and reduce the apple's transparency, there wont be anything behind it except a black area in the shape of the apple.

So to do this in Cinema, you must save 2 different versions of the scene to render. One where only the apple is visible and the other where only the table is visible. Simple enough. But, now the client comes back and wants to make changes to the scene. You now must either go in to each file and make the same changes twice, or, make the changes in the original scene and then save the two .c4d files again to render. Hardly convient or maintainable, especially when things get more complicated than this simple example.

In Maya, you would have the apple on one render layer, the table on another. And from just one Maya scene you can render both layers to different files, no need to create multiple .ma's. And when the client comes back and wants to make changes, it's easy because the two layers are children of a master layer. In the master layer you can make changes globally and have them trickle down to the children layers. Hit render, done.

Again, extremely simple example.

Last edited by fusepilot : 08 August 2012 at 12:03 AM.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #26
Originally Posted by interactiveBoy: For now, I'd settle for the very basic ability to custom name passes.

"Object Buffer 1", "Object Buffer 2", etc. is so un-userfriendly and is a nightmare when trying to composite a seemingly endless stream of object buffers and layers.


Do I dare mention the extra annoying part of not having the ability to name the object buffers is that the newer render settings window does actually allow you to name the object buffer passes, but that doesn't correlate to the naming when rendered.

So its not like they even need to program a means to rename the buffers, just use the multipasslayer names form the rendersettings window.
__________________
"Until you do what you believe in, how do you know whether you believe in it or not?" -Leo Tolstoy
Kai Pedersen
 
Old 08 August 2012   #27
Originally Posted by fusepilot: Say I wanted to composite an apple slowly fading up to full visibility on a table in After Effects. To do this correctly you need to render the scene at least twice to get a render of just the apple and then just the table separately. An object buffer on the apple wont work in this case because when you apply the buffer and reduce the apple's transparency, there wont be anything behind it except a black area in the shape of the apple.

So to do this in Cinema, you must save 2 different versions of the scene to render. One where only the apple is visible and the other where only the table is visible. Simple enough. But, now the client comes back and wants to make changes to the scene. You now must either go in to each file and make the same changes twice, or, make the changes in the original scene and then save the two .c4d files again to render. Hardly convient or maintainable, especially when things get more complicated than this simple example.

In Maya, you would have the apple on one render layer, the table on another. And from just one Maya scene you can render both layers to different files, no need to create multiple .ma's. And when the client comes back and wants to make changes, it's easy because the two layers are children of a master layer. In the master layer you can make changes globally and have them trickle down to the children layers. Hit render, done.

Again, extremely simple example.


On the upside you can hack some of this through xrefs.

Bring your master scene into a new project as an xref, adjust the render settings accordingly, so that you only have the apple. Save as apple.

Bring the same master into another new project, adjust render settings so you only have the background, save as BG.

Now, the client wants a change to the animation, you adjust the master and the changes get propagated to the render files.

Yes it sucks that you still need to go through 2 renders, but at least you can side step manually making the edits.
__________________
The views expressed in this post are by no means the opinion of those making the post or of any one person in particular.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #28
Yes, I am amazed that there is still no naming option for object buffers. It really needs an overhaul on the compositing tag side as well to bring it up to the usual C4D simplicity. Rather than using a number system, you should be able to create the buffer name in the render settings window and then drag objects in to a twirl down tab.

It is too easy to get lost with compositing tags, especially when you have very nested hierarchies. If you could see at a glance all objects associated with a buffer name in the render settings window, life would be a lot easier. Can't tell you the number of times, I have left out an object or assigned it to the wrong number

An object ID pass would probably be a better system anyway, although still nice to have an option of manually setting up buffers. Even better would be for the object to have its own alpha, ala Maya.

My other pet peeve is not having an option to have no textures/colour in the diffuse pass. Different packages have different conventions for this, so call it a diffuse lighting pass if you want, but having a greyscale diffuse pass can be so powerful if you want to change textures or lighting in post.

It is ironic that C4D had one of the best passes systems out there when it was released, but now shows its age .The WPP and Nuke export are a good start, so you can only hope that Maxon are on the case.
 
Old 08 August 2012   #29
Isn't "render element" basically doing most of that already ? (controlling tags, materials, render settings, including layers on/off etc...).

Off course, the problem is that you can't send them automatically to the render queue (unless I'm mistaken). Is that the you're asking for ?

Slighlty OT, but still on the topic of multipasses, anyone knows if there's a simple way to create "per material mattes" without resorting to shuffling tons of black and white materials in the whole scene manually ?
 
Old 08 August 2012   #30
Originally Posted by interactiveBoy: For now, I'd settle for the very basic ability to custom name passes.

"Object Buffer 1", "Object Buffer 2", etc. is so un-userfriendly and is a nightmare when trying to composite a seemingly endless stream of object buffers and layers.


...followed by the nightmare using Net Render...
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.