8.2 new antialiasing options

[JML]

for those who doesn't have 8.2 yet,

it's still early and I need to do a lot more test on it of course, but until now, I did some quick test at work, (on a exterior building) (with tiny details ) and
I found that enhanced low is still the best for ntsc video for this kind of render.
(because of small details, it's hard to have a clean edge without doing enlow at this small resolution.. but I'll try again with more different filters of course)

BUT for high resolution print, I did a test render with just 1 pass pld and mitchell,
and it looked fine and it was 3 times faster to render !

there is a lot of filters so there is a lot to play with..
just wanted to share my first impression with the archi guys

[JML]

probably the use of the new antialiasing options will be also very good for interiors , (even at small resolution)

[Matt]

I'm sure others are already doing their own tests, but I'm going to compile a PDF of all the filters at all pass-levels on a few 'stress test' scenes (one with lots of noise, one with loads of fine parallel lines, one with really soft clean shadows on a subtley faded white background and maybe one with a bit of all of the above).

When it's done I'll post it online for others to use as a reference.

Matt

[R2D2]

Matt,

That sounds like it will be a great help! Looking forward to it.

Later,
R2

[JML]

yeah we should make like a thread with lots of rendered picture with render time to compare the different new filter and passes...

[kenmac]

So how is 8.2 with animation?
Has it corrected the flickering texure problem?

[pixym]

JML,

Thank you for sharing information with archi guys (I am one of them)
I have made an animation test with 3 pass PLD mitchel but to be honest the result is some little too soft and there is a general lack of detail. there is a lot of moiré also... :o
the flikering issue is still present. :confused:
I still prefer to use AA low enhanced :mad:
I have not tested the new PLD AA for hires stills. So I will let you know when I make a test. ;)

Best

[JML]

yes I think for archi videos (or other with tiny details), enlow,enmed,etc.. are still best..
but when rendering high resolution, you can save a lot of time with just 1 or 2 PLD pass..
it's not as nice as enlow of course but in quality/speed ratio I think it's pretty good..

I still need to try the PLD and filters a lot more... too much work in the office right now.. (and I only have 7.5 at home)

one thing I was wondering is, enlow seems to look better than 5PLD pass with any of those new filters...(even classic filter)
so which filter does "enhanced" actually use and why it's not available as a filter ?...

[pixym]

even if His res, Low enhanced is still the minimum AA level for me :rolleyes:

[fabmedia]

I beg to differ with the Enhanced Low/ Medium. I've found that PLD 3 with Gausian render's far better than Enhands Low/Dithered, and PLD 5 with Gaussian renders better than Enhanced Medium/Dithered.

It's funny how we all get different results.

[pixym]

PLD 3 can be used for still and it is faster than low enhanced AA, but for my archiViz works PLD 3 is useless for animation...

[colkai]

I'm sure others are already doing their own tests, but I'm going to compile a PDF.....
When it's done I'll post it online for others to use as a reference.

Matt
Matt, sir, you are a total star! :thumbsup: I'm sure htere are many of us out here who would find such a resource very informative.

[toby]

I beg to differ with the Enhanced Low/ Medium. I've found that PLD 3 with Gausian render's far better than Enhands Low/Dithered, and PLD 5 with Gaussian renders better than Enhanced Medium/Dithered.

It's funny how we all get different results.
Can you show us the two images together? I'd like to see a PLD render that actually looks better than classic!

[JML]

fabmedia was using Enhands Low/Dithered so with motion blur, so maybe
there it looks better because the gaussian filter blur the image a little more..

I think enlow looks better than PLD passes in general but sometimes you can use PLD, depending on your objects and save lots of time even for animations..

it depends a lot of the scene, the reason I like PDL passes is when doing high rez still, and I have volumetric , if I use low AA with adaptiveSampling, it will render 5 times the volumetric which is waste of time (at high rez),
if I use 2 PLD passes, it looks fine and render super fast because it will render
only twice the volumetrics.



on the following images, the ship's main hull looks fine in all the renders, but if you look at the small cables and reactor details you will see enlow is better (or using more passes)..

so if you don't have any small little details on your objects that need lots of AA you can use the PDL passes and save a lot of time..

1 : enlow classic, 6mn
2 : 3 PLD GaussianSharp 3mn39
3 : 2 PLD Gaussiansharp 2mn26
4 : low with AdaptiveSampling 4mn46
(that scene is using montecarlo radiosity)


for videos at work, our buildings have lots of little details so we need to use enlow or enmedium.
but if our objects did not have those little things, we could use PLD passes and save a lot of time.
so like I said it depends on the scene..

[fabmedia]

I'll post some images later today demonstrating stills and motion blurs and post what render is what. I'll render them at 720p as that will be the resolution that I'll be using and will demonstrate the quality of the blur.

[fabmedia]

Okay, the model is Christopher Dessey's but here are some examples...

[toby]

Interesting...

What I don't like about the gaussian is that you're losing detail, especially the sharpness of the reflection in the chrome.

I should also mention that dithered motion blur is not always a good thing. It can take up to 75% longer to render than normal motion blur, since it's sort of doubling the passes. If your motion blur is not stepping/banding visibly, then dithering will make it look worse instead of better. It helps to fill in the gaps with too few passes, but if there are no gaps it just messes it up.

Enhanced aa is slightly smoother and softer than regular aa, so it can save you time by allowing fewer passes.

Try using Vector Blur. It provides pretty smooth blur pretty fast, and it doesn't rely on passes so you can use very low aa, but it only works in straight line - looks really bad on propellors for example.

A lot of this depends on what your target audience is too. If this is for a demo reel for a 3D lighting career, you'd better use maximum aa. If it's for a client, you don't have to do more than they can see. If it's just for you, you can do whatever you want, but you may wish you had gone for higher quality in the future... like I did :foreheads

What kind of render times are you getting, and have you set a maximum? You'll probably be rendering before you're finished too, light and animate the first shot and render it while you're working on the second, etc.

[fabmedia]

There are a couple of things I'm working on. I'm recreating an animation that I did last year due to the fact I can do it alot better now and I have a new bag of tricks up my sleeve. The renders that I did for a military boat were coming in at 12-15 minutes per frame with particles and reflections at NTSC resolution. I'm changing my format to HD 720p so a re-render is needed.

As for AA, vector blur has it's good and bad sides. IF you have a propeller that is head on, you're good for that too (just to let you know), but I tend not to use that due to too many errors is it's solution.

I'm also creating an animated short outside of my demo reel and I have to really be careful with how I'm do everything. Everything for my demo reel is based on modelling, lighting, animation, texturing, etc., especially texturing. I find that I'm pretty stong iin that area. I'm also creating matte paintings which really interests me as well.

My problem is that my 12-15 minute renders need to be cut to 1/3 to 1/2 the time, and I've been thinking of doing the motion blur in post using ReelSmart Motion Blur in Combustion.

[toby]

Hmmm, if you're rendering HD instead of NTSC it'll be even harder to speed up the render - that can take 2 - 3 times longer, all else being equal 8~

[fabmedia]

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm trying to get some help here. Maybe I can use the low # of passes with RealSmart Motion Blur to pull it off. I don't know. I figured that from here one, I'm going to produce in HD 720 format as much as I can. Especially for my short. I want the ability to print to film if needed. With my demo reel, I want to demonstrate the detail. I think it'll make a bit of a difference producing something that large as well. I'm noticing that not very many people are producing a larger format (not that it matters). I think it's more for my interests.

[toby]

It sounds like you're willing to give up AA for higher resolution - kind of ironic actually, since AA predominantly uses 'oversampling', rendering a bigger image and scaling down. The thing is, the higher resolution, the better the image quality needs to be. Otherwise you may as well just up-res after rendering. AA needs to be higher, textures need to be larger, and there needs to be more detail, meaning higher polygon count. Imagine all the detail put into Lord of the Rings at 2000 pixels wide. It has to look real at that resolution. Rendering double the size of NTSC will take 4 times longer (twice the height plus twice the width), but if you add the detail neccesary to justify HD, it will take even longer to render.

As far as HD is concerned, I'd bet that only 1-5% of the people who see your work will even know the difference, NTSC is being shown on HDTV's more often than HD, with no complaints. But people in the business, like employers or peers, will see the difference immediately if you don't have enough AA. They want to see good-quality work, and to know that you know the difference.

So yes, in this case, quality is more important than size ;D

[fabmedia]

That makes a lot of sense. Let me ponder that for a bit and I'll get back to you.