PDA

View Full Version : while i'm not a fan of physically accurate rendering....



jin choung
08-23-2009, 01:40 PM
this is pretty nuts:

http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/index.php/Features

i don't really see the need for a renderer to go "full spectral" in 99% of renders, it's amazing that it can do it.

also it's free but doesn't provide any import/export with lw.... but it's open for a developer to create a link if so inclined.

jin

akademus
08-23-2009, 02:19 PM
Looks pretty decent for a free renderer. These things prove how "art" of photorealism becomes obsolete.

I wonder how many of todays essential 3D skills will become unnecessary in future.
Remember UV mapping? :)

jin choung
08-23-2009, 02:25 PM
some will become obsolete.

but others won't.

the world we live in is 100% "physically accurate" but we still have cinematographers.... and what's more - LIGHTS! and gobbos and filters and screens etc.

that's why i'm not and have never been really enamored with the physically accurate push.

it's all artifice anyway.

use the cheapest and fastest to get the LOOK. that's all that matters. not process.

jin

wacom
08-23-2009, 04:38 PM
I think these type of render engines have the bouncing right etc. for the light, but it also demonstrates IMHO how your shaders and textures could be the weak link.

Mr Rid
08-23-2009, 04:39 PM
As usual, LW is not considered for support while Cinema 4D is.

biliousfrog
08-24-2009, 02:16 AM
I'm fairly certain that some people on here have used it, I've definitely looked at it before.

Rayek
08-24-2009, 02:20 AM
I've read that Blender 2.5 will have the option to integrate this and other external render engines directly in the compositing pipeline. Very cool - I wonder if the output of different render engines can all be freely mixed as well in the compositor: that would open up some interesting possibilities.

cresshead
08-24-2009, 02:37 AM
As usual, LW is not considered for support while Cinema 4D is.


also no 3dsmax or houdini...so, not so bad afterall!

geo_n
08-24-2009, 02:47 AM
also no 3dsmax or houdini...so, not so bad afterall!

there is max in the forums. the lw one stopped being developed a year ago.

toby
08-24-2009, 03:08 AM
the world we live in is 100% "physically accurate" but we still have cinematographers.... and what's more - LIGHTS! and gobbos and filters and screens etc.
Pre-f'ing-cisely. There's waaaaaaaaaaaayyy too many people that don't understand that GOOD LOOKS come before realism, unless you're matching an ugly photo or something. A cg image that's indistinguishable to a photo of POOP is clearly more realistic than a Pixar film, which would you rather?

MrWyatt
08-24-2009, 04:34 AM
As a lighter I have to say that I like when I can have physically accurate if I want to, but still be able to go into "unreal territory" if the mood needs it. All aspects of a rendering engine should be direct-able otherwise you start to fight it. realism, at least in narrative film, is not desirable in most cases. usually, to create a specific mood you have to do things beyond physically accurate and the only thing that matters then is the end result. render engines that don't let you do that are not that interesting to me.

DiedonD
08-24-2009, 04:36 AM
Quite photoreal, but still this one managed to look CG like regardless the hype.

http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/images/9/9a/Fp06_networkren.jpg

Probably because the land (left bottom) is sharp there and wavy later on, and not to mention that having such a vast space with nothing but minor waves in it is a good no for copying photorealism.

Unless you proove with an image the chaotic, dissymetric and non repetitiveness of nature in CG, then it gives the tint of CG REGARDLESS that it may even be a real picture taken!

Two tree images attached to show you what I mean. The first tree looks more CG due to the gradient greenness in it from left to right. The second is more chaotic and looks more real. While both are real shots.

erikals
08-24-2009, 11:41 AM
um, i think the first looks just fine, the second though looks to have some problems with a wrong dof value...

Mr Rid
08-24-2009, 04:18 PM
also no 3dsmax or houdini...so, not so bad afterall!

That's the way to see the glass as one sixth full. :thumbsup:

DarkLight
08-25-2009, 03:55 AM
I did start working on an exporter for Lightwave quite a while back. Got as far as exporting geometry but no materials. Had to stop working on the exporter due to lack of time but will take another look at it when i get a chance.

DiedonD
08-25-2009, 06:14 AM
um, i think the first looks just fine, the second though looks to have some problems with a wrong dof value...

Oh no worries with the shots! They were taken from my cel anyway!

But I say, shold you try to mimic the first picture, due to its natural more clean look, youd have harder time persuading people that its photoreal, than if you would mimic the second one!

The second one has darker shadows all around it, while the first one tends to have them on a more linear from lef to right way, which implicates a clean look, thus suggesting a more CG look to it.

My point is, that if your making midels in CG, youll have to use references that have more 'proof' more things that stand out as beeing more regular, in order to provide a more photorealistic standing picture in CG in the end.

Not both of those tree references would do, EVEN though BOTH of them are real, and some 20 meters away from each other!

erikals
08-25-2009, 06:49 AM
yeah, that's true, some times real can look unreal... : )
this is more the case in a pure 3D movie though, where ppl tend too look for mistakes.
in a "driving miss daisy" movie, ppl probably wouldn't notice, as they wouldn't be looking for it

archijam
08-25-2009, 07:09 AM
I did start working on an exporter for Lightwave quite a while back. Got as far as exporting geometry but no materials. Had to stop working on the exporter due to lack of time but will take another look at it when i get a chance.

Nice. Keep us posted : )