PDA

View Full Version : my God... it's beautiful



jin choung
01-10-2010, 11:33 PM
one man show.

do yourself a favor - obey the request to go full screen. turn off the lights. turn up the volume. begin to breathe deeply. behold.

BEAUTIFULLY lit and shot... a study in bokeh... a masterpiece of old school, analog film making.

http://www.vimeo.com/7809605

only thing is...

not a stitch of it is real.

all cgi. all done, including music, by one guy.

3ds max, vray (it singlehandedly has the power to make any person on the planet purchase vray... even if they don't own max. even if they don't own a computer).

jin

Skonk
01-11-2010, 02:35 AM
Was this not posted already a while back?

Think there was a long thread about it.

geo_n
01-11-2010, 02:52 AM
3ds max, vray (it singlehandedly has the power to make any person on the planet purchase vray... even if they don't own max. even if they don't own a computer).


haha. it certainly has influenced the industry and indivuals, vray!
A professor in photography I know actually bought c4d because of wanting to learn vray. :thumbsup:

yep another thread existed with mr.rid but jin's post just made me smile.

Iain
01-11-2010, 08:06 AM
Was this not posted already a while back?

Think there was a long thread about it.

Yeah, I posted a link to a less polished version and quite a few people here dismissed it, which made me think seriously about why I hung around this forum as much as I did.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100785&highlight=alex+roman

Each to their own though, and all that.

3DGFXStudios
01-11-2010, 08:08 AM
It has been posted many times but it's no problem at all cause it's so beautiful (L)

cresshead
01-11-2010, 09:17 AM
Yeah, I posted a link to a less polished version and quite a few people here dismissed it, which made me think seriously about why I hung around this forum as much as I did.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100785&highlight=alex+roman

Each to their own though, and all that.

yup there's alot that about...some artists need to justify their invesment/choice so dismiss work done on other apps or renderers.

just think if people also dismissed artwork created by the great painters cos of the brand of brush they used or the manufacture method of the paint...

sad sad sad....

cresshead
01-11-2010, 10:03 AM
talking of Vray....and blender....
http://www.cgrecord.net/2010/01/v-ray-rt-demonstration-on-gpu.html

ken_g9
01-11-2010, 10:21 AM
Color me impressed!!! Wow!!!

Derrick_SA
01-11-2010, 12:24 PM
jin, is the link still active?

thanks,
Derrick

archijam
01-11-2010, 01:04 PM
C4d and blender are community (unofficial) ports.

For Core please! :)

and no more we don't need VRay comments. It just raises the bar, and that's good for kray etc too...

Rayek
01-11-2010, 04:50 PM
Have you guys seen this?

http://www.refractivesoftware.com/videos.html
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/

Very nice - the realtime unbiased rendering is amazing. And usability seems tops. Only 99 euro for beta and v1... Hmmm...

jin choung
01-11-2010, 06:20 PM
jin, is the link still active?

thanks,
Derrick

yeah!

jin

JMCarrigan
01-11-2010, 07:01 PM
haha. it certainly has influenced the industry and indivuals, vray!
A professor in photography I know actually bought c4d because of wanting to learn vray. :thumbsup:

yep another thread existed with mr.rid but jin's post just made me smile.

Ditto. I think Jin was actually gushing. He's bright, articulate but - never gushing.

Speedmonk42
01-11-2010, 07:28 PM
C4d and blender are community (unofficial) ports.

For Core please! :)

and no more we don't need VRay comments. It just raises the bar, and that's good for kray etc too...


Community ports? I thought V-Ray was a product. ???

jin choung
01-11-2010, 07:36 PM
Ditto. I think Jin was actually gushing. He's bright, articulate but - never gushing.

awww thanks.... but i insist that you not leave out vulgar, profane, offensive, opinionated and implausibly salacious!

i have been known to gush. but it's gotta be gush-worthy. not a lotta things in life are gush worthy.

jin

p.s. i'm really enjoying saying gush....

jin choung
01-11-2010, 07:37 PM
Community ports? I thought V-Ray was a product. ???

community ports for the vray interfaces with the app.

vray is a product but they have these homebrew solutions to link your app of choice to it.

no lw yet though.

jin

JMCarrigan
01-11-2010, 07:46 PM
Gush-darn, now I'm gonna have to look up salacious.;0)

JMCarrigan
01-11-2010, 07:49 PM
Hmmmm. So you're fond of leaping huh? Well - who isn't?

IgnusFast
01-11-2010, 08:07 PM
Yeah, I posted a link to a less polished version and quite a few people here dismissed it, which made me think seriously about why I hung around this forum as much as I did.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100785&highlight=alex+roman

Each to their own though, and all that.

I was one of those who didn't appreciate the first posted version, but this last one was quite spectacular. For me, it was the difference between a simple drawing and fine art. The later version had that spark; the sense of style and design that made it much more distinct than the first.

I dunno why, man. Just my opinion.

MrWyatt
01-12-2010, 03:10 AM
as I pointed out in another thread. looking at this making of...
http://www.vimeo.com/8217700
...and this comp breakdown
http://www.vimeo.com/8200251
I would rather say this is a reason to purchase After Effects and praise the artist for his ability's as a compositor than it's a reason to buy vray.

judging at the naked render it looks quite boring and flat, 80% of the look are done in comp. In no way am I trying to take away from the beauty of this piece. It is wonderful, no doubt about it, I wish I had his comp skills.
But to call this piece an achievement in 3d when actually the 3d part is lit and rendered pretty flat and dull looking, and it is really the compositing part that turns it into a masterpiece, hmm, maybe it's just me but I find that a bit over the top.

Again, before I get crucified here. I love his work and he is indeed a great artist. one who actually seems to know a thing or two about framing, composition, light and color, and that is not often the case. I just don't get why everyone gets so exited about vray and the superior lighting and rendering of this piece, when it is obviously not that impressive when looking at the naked renderings how they came out of vray. I might have a look back into After Effects though, even when I hated it so much I went for nuke, but I am not much of a compositor anyway so I wouldn't know how to achieve a look like that in comp. So he is indeed a master, a master of compositing, that is.

archijam
01-12-2010, 04:27 AM
Community ports? I thought V-Ray was a product. ???

Sorry, I was posting from my iPhone.

To be more exact:

VRay has only been Officially released for Maya and 3DSMax, by ChaosGroup, bless their bunny slippers.

Since then, various community groups (and a few companies too) made various ports (mostly of the Maya version) so that it would work for other softwares.

C4D - began as a community port, now owned commercially I believe, by LAUBlab.
Blender - Community port (you still have to buy the Maya Vray version).
SketchUp - Ported by a company called ASGVIS.
Rhino3D - Ported by a company called ASGVIS.
XSI - Still in beta.

Given all this community and commercial effort, I don't see ChaosGroup going out of there way to do any more versions at their own expense - after all, people still have to buy licenses, whatever the package.

Soooo .. I repeat .. anyone want to port for CORE :) ?


ps. This info may not be bulletproof, it's just what I have picked up here and there .. the net is full of BS :thumbsup:

RebelHill
01-12-2010, 06:29 AM
judging at the naked render it looks quite boring and flat, 80% of the look are done in comp....

I might have a look back into After Effects though, even when I hated it so much I went for nuke,

I think you'll find that most of the post process look thats added he did using the magic bullet suite from red giant... its got little to do with after effects itself.

MrWyatt
01-12-2010, 07:52 AM
I think you'll find that most of the post process look thats added he did using the magic bullet suite from red giant... its got little to do with after effects itself.

If that is the case, (don't know the magic bullet suite) then I wonder even more.

Iain
01-12-2010, 11:27 AM
MrWyatt, are you familiar with the phrase "you can't polish a turd"?

Very few renders are ever free from post production. It's part of the process but you can't improve texture and light quality by tweaking in post-all the information has to be there to be 'highlighted' using post techniques.

No-one is saying buying VRay will allow you to produce work of this standard-it's just the best tool to get the groundwork done. Bar none.

jin choung
01-12-2010, 12:00 PM
MrWyatt, are you familiar with the phrase "you can't polish a turd"?

Very few renders are ever free from post production. It's part of the process but you can't improve texture and light quality by tweaking in post-all the information has to be there to be 'highlighted' using post techniques.

right.

i've heard discussions with peeps even from digital domain and they say that almost as a mantra:

renders are FODDER for further manipulation.

usually, a render itself only gets you 80% of the way there. the final push (especially for stuff that gets married to live action) comes in the comp.

besides, in my gushing, the miracle that i point out is that this is all computer generated. 2d/3d, it was purely digital.

that's the marvel.

jin

MrWyatt
01-12-2010, 01:24 PM
right.

i've heard discussions with peeps even from digital domain and they say that almost as a mantra:

renders are FODDER for further manipulation.

usually, a render itself only gets you 80% of the way there. the final push (especially for stuff that gets married to live action) comes in the comp.

besides, in my gushing, the miracle that i point out is that this is all computer generated. 2d/3d, it was purely digital.

that's the marvel.

jin

well not that I disagree with you as I don't. but what ever the guys at digital domain say, is pretty much biased by the kind of work they do over there. I would bet that who ever you ask at studios like Pixar, Dreamworks Animation and the likes, tend to think different. and although I myself am happy to get 80% in the rendering and the last 20% in comp, I found that Alex Roman tends to do it the other way around by doing 20% in rendering and 80% in comp.
Does that say that I dislike his work or don't find it remarkable? Heck No. I love it. I just don't see the hype in the rendering and lighting as he clearly does most of his lighting in comp, which again is totally ok with me, but it doesn't show anything from vray that couldn't be done in any other renderer.

jin choung
01-12-2010, 01:39 PM
well not that I disagree with you as I don't. but what ever the guys at digital domain say, is pretty much biased by the kind of work they do over there. I would bet that who ever you ask at studios like Pixar, Dreamworks Animation and the likes, tend to think different. and although I myself am happy to get 80% in the rendering and the last 20% in comp, I found that Alex Roman tends to do it the other way around by doing 20% in rendering and 80% in comp.
Does that say that I dislike his work or don't find it remarkable? Heck No. I love it. I just don't see the hype in the rendering and lighting as he clearly does most of his lighting in comp, which again is totally ok with me, but it doesn't show anything from vray that couldn't be done in any other renderer.

i just think your point is moot. it's fine for you to have it but it's kinda pointless.

it's like saying that he's not that great because he didn't model the parts of the building that aren't shown in the render. why does it matter? does it matter for the final product - the movie? hell no.

it doesn't matter where the percentages lie. 80/20, 20/80, 90/10, whatever.

the ONLY thing that matters is final product. if company X can get a pixar like movie by doing 90% of it in post, then there's really nothing left to talk about - the final product is as good - THAT'S IT. case closed.

and even in terms of 3d, in terms of modeling and animation and surfacing and lighting - that is stuff that can be pushed and pulled but cannot be created out of whole cloth in comp. the 3d work is superb.

do you know what RAW images are? it's encoding a digital photograph so that you capture as much data as possible. but if viewed without manipulation, it looks MUDDY. to me, what you're saying is like complaining that the photo is in RAW, muddy, and therefore not as good as an image captured by a cheaper camera that looks good to begin with (but is also far more limited in where it can go).

jin

MrWyatt
01-12-2010, 01:48 PM
and again you want to read in my post what was never there in the first place. I never argued that the final product wasn't fabulous.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!
you hear me now?

the only thing I was arguing was your remark about "it singlehandedly has the power to make any person on the planet purchase vray... even if they don't own max. even if they don't own a computer".

that part I thought was a little over the top, considering how much was done in rendering and how much in comp.

but If you guys insist in misunderstanding my posts, be my guest.

jin choung
01-12-2010, 01:54 PM
and again you want to read in my post what was never there in the first place. I never argued that the final product wasn't fabulous.
[SIZE="6"] the only thing I was arguing was your remark about "it singlehandedly has the power to make any person on the planet purchase vray... even if they don't own max. even if they don't own a computer".


ahhhh.... so your beef is with vray.

i'm going to read into your critique a little more then - you don't like vray for some reason?

i occasionally run into folks who really don't like vray but... i don't get that.

care to illuminate me?

also - how does one do their lighting mostly in COMP?!? again, like with a RAW photo, you can tweak but you can't generally relight where light was not there to begin with (generally speaking... you can but he didn't). lighting is distinct from GRADING.

jin

cresshead
01-12-2010, 02:03 PM
ahhhh.... so your beef is with vray.

i'm going to read into your critique a little more then - you don't like vray for some reason?

i occasionally run into folks who really don't like vray but... i don't get that.

care to illuminate me?

also - how does one do their lighting mostly in COMP?!? again, like with a RAW photo, you can tweak but you can't generally relight where light was not there to begin with (generally speaking... you can but he didn't). lighting is distinct from GRADING.

jin

he's possibly refering to this video
http://vimeo.com/8200251

or this one
http://vimeo.com/8217700

MrWyatt
01-12-2010, 02:09 PM
wow, I am speechless, internet is soooooo hard. everybody reads things I never wrote.

let's finish this futile conversation with a direct answer to your question, hoping you will not again read anything new into it "between the lines".
there is nothing between the lines but empty space.

answer to your question:
I don't have neither beef nor pork nor turkey with vray. I like the quality of the renders I see done with it. I have personally not worked with it yet, but that could change as the studio I work at works in maya and we are a little fed up with mental ray for various reasons, but I guess the grass is always greener on the other side, right.

so to recap.

1. beef with vray? Nope! check
2. necessity to "read into my critique a little more then - I don't like vray for some reason"? Nope! check

I hope you feel illuminated now. (that is btw not meant sarcastic)
let's leave it at that, shall we?

MrWyatt
01-12-2010, 02:12 PM
he's possibly refering to this video
http://vimeo.com/8200251

or this one
http://vimeo.com/8217700

Yup, those are the ones.

jin choung
01-12-2010, 02:20 PM
he's possibly refering to this video
http://vimeo.com/8200251

or this one
http://vimeo.com/8217700

right... but unless the contention is that you're getting wireframe solids out of vray, i still see all the lighting and texturing being done in 3d.

again - lighting is not GRADING.

jin

Iain
01-12-2010, 02:36 PM
everybody reads things I never wrote.



I don't think anyone has. You are maintaining that the 3d rendering here is responsible for only 20% of the final product.
I disagree strongly. Regardless of the engine used-its output forms the essential basis of what you see here.

If you say something you know is contentious you should be prepared for a response. I think you even said you were!

JeffrySG
01-12-2010, 04:02 PM
Yeah, I posted a link to a less polished version and quite a few people here dismissed it, which made me think seriously about why I hung around this forum as much as I did.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100785&highlight=alex+roman

Each to their own though, and all that.

Don't you dare stop hanging around here!

I thought these breakdown videos were really great to watch as well.
http://www.vimeo.com/8200251
http://www.vimeo.com/8217700

I was really amazed at how very simple all of his models truly are and how much the compositing changed the whole look of everything. Does anyone know what plugin he used for the DOF? the native lens blur in AE?


(edit, opps... I just saw that someone else posed the breakdown vids)

JBT27
01-13-2010, 07:33 AM
Out of curiosity, how is he doing those leaves on the 3D trees?

If you pause those brief snatches of wireframe that he includes in the comp breakdown, the branches all have cubes hanging off them .....

..... is that a Vray volumetric thing?

Julian.

Andyjaggy
01-13-2010, 08:59 AM
Don't you dare stop hanging around here!

I thought these breakdown videos were really great to watch as well.
http://www.vimeo.com/8200251
http://www.vimeo.com/8217700

I was really amazed at how very simple all of his models truly are and how much the compositing changed the whole look of everything. Does anyone know what plugin he used for the DOF? the native lens blur in AE?


(edit, opps... I just saw that someone else posed the breakdown vids)

I highly doubt it as the built in DOF in AE is a piece of garbage pie.

I would guess frischluft lenscare pluring.

geo_n
01-14-2010, 12:20 AM
Out of curiosity, how is he doing those leaves on the 3D trees?

If you pause those brief snatches of wireframe that he includes in the comp breakdown, the branches all have cubes hanging off them .....

..... is that a Vray volumetric thing?

Julian.

That's vray scatter I believe.

Here's an interview
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entremaqueros.com%2Fb itacoras%2Fdimension%2F%3Fp%3D8386&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

JBT27
01-14-2010, 12:52 PM
That's vray scatter I believe.

Here's an interview
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entremaqueros.com%2Fb itacoras%2Fdimension%2F%3Fp%3D8386&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Thanks. So actually, aside from the renderer being Vray, VrayScatter is an instancing plugin for Max Vray, by the looks of it. So what he's done for the foliage is pretty much an HDInstance approach - it looks great, but I was wondering if there was some Max/Vray voodoo at play ..... clearly not really.

Julian.

Iaian7
01-15-2010, 10:52 AM
Here's an interview
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entremaqueros.com%2Fb itacoras%2Fdimension%2F%3Fp%3D8386&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Can't thank you enough for that interview - I've been trying to find a reference to his DOF solution for quite some time, looks like he may use one or more of a couple plugins (he lists "Irisfilter, Lenscare, DofPro, etc."). I watched the short film when it was posted on Motionographer.com, and it was the depth of field that, for the first few minutes, convinced me it had to have been photographed! The realism of some of that Bokeh still has my jaw dropping... wish I knew exactly how he managed such beautiful focal effects on the camera equipment (one of the more obvious places where rendering in planes would have been impossible, to the best of my knowledge).

And yes, I may have cried a little when I found out the vegetation was entirely CG, not to mention his eye for lighting/grading is breathtaking (and photographically accurate in so many cases). Really phenomenal work.

Stooch
01-15-2010, 11:00 AM
the vegetation isnt exactly ground breaking, there was a post a while back on maya forums which used MR and paint effects trees and archvis that looked just as good as this video. so this isnt about VRay being superior, I think the true driving force here is pure talent.

Andyjaggy
01-15-2010, 11:43 AM
I think the grading really takes this piece from great to fantastic.

Before the grading it's just a pretty good arch viz render, but after he does his magic it really comes to life. This guy could definately be a colorist.

Oh and the vegetation looks fantastic. My favorite parts are those with the vegetation in them.

Iaian7
01-15-2010, 11:49 AM
the vegetation isnt exactly ground breaking, there was a post a while back on maya forums which used MR and paint effects trees and archvis that looked just as good as this video. so this isnt about VRay being superior, I think the true driving force here is pure talent.

Hey, it's ground breaking for me! :hey: Vue was unusably slow last I tried it, Trees Designer was never updated for Mac (much less UB), and I'm still holding out for native instancing in Lightwave. Yes, HDI would be helpful, but I'm not made of money... which is maybe why I don't have some other package that could handle this sort of thing. :D

But yes, I agree - Roman's talent and artistic vision are what really makes the film. Fantastically elegant, in so many ways. Using the Gattaca soundtrack as a basis or inspiration isn't so bad either. :thumbsup:

Iain
01-15-2010, 01:18 PM
the vegetation isnt exactly ground breaking, there was a post a while back on maya forums which used MR and paint effects trees and archvis that looked just as good as this video. so this isnt about VRay being superior, I think the true driving force here is pure talent.

Can you post a link to that? I've personally never seen any realistic arch viz that looks as good as this, render engine aside. Some of the Uniform stuff has been close. Pure and Neoscape and others have had their moments of genius too but never for this kind of duration and never this provocative and beautiful.

The artist's talent is, of course, the driving force here but then no-one has said anyone can do this kind of thing just by using vray.
Using it would have undoubtedly made things a whole lot easier for him, however.

Captain Obvious
01-15-2010, 03:08 PM
ahhhh.... so your beef is with vray.
It has nothing to do with having a beef.

There is not a single shot in the movie that could not have been done in Lightwave, or indeed pretty much any high-end renderer. The lighting is good, yes, but a significant portion of the 'look' is because of the grading. Grading cannot really take a horrible shot and make it look amazing, but it can take a decent enough shot and make it gorgeous.

Edit: Oh, and the texturing's alright too. That makes a big difference. With good texturing and decent lighting, it doesn't take much grading to make it great.

Stooch
01-15-2010, 04:04 PM
here you go..

in my extremely humble opinion, the vegetation is actually superior:

http://marlas.cgsociety.org/gallery/

be advised that EVERYTHING, even the blades of grass, are made with paint effects...


Can you post a link to that? I've personally never seen any realistic arch viz that looks as good as this, render engine aside. Some of the Uniform stuff has been close. Pure and Neoscape and others have had their moments of genius too but never for this kind of duration and never this provocative and beautiful.

The artist's talent is, of course, the driving force here but then no-one has said anyone can do this kind of thing just by using vray.
Using it would have undoubtedly made things a whole lot easier for him, however.

Stooch
01-15-2010, 04:06 PM
It has nothing to do with having a beef.

There is not a single shot in the movie that could not have been done in Lightwave, or indeed pretty much any high-end renderer. The lighting is good, yes, but a significant portion of the 'look' is because of the grading. Grading cannot really take a horrible shot and make it look amazing, but it can take a decent enough shot and make it gorgeous.

Edit: Oh, and the texturing's alright too. That makes a big difference. With good texturing and decent lighting, it doesn't take much grading to make it great.

i think that LW would choke on the complexity of the vegetation shots. Yes i know about HD instancing leaves... still though, you cant instance everything (especially if you want a healthy amount of diverse plants). at the very least, you would have to break the shots out into many passes... no thanks. Also, i have worked even with moderately complex shots in LW where simply loading the scenes would take 5-10 minutes... ewwww...

some of the simpler shots, sure, lw could do those comfortably... its all in the eye of the artist.

AdamAvenali
01-15-2010, 04:15 PM
here you go... [clip] ...be advised that EVERYTHING, even the blades of grass, are made with paint effects...

that is the first example i show people whenever paint effects are brought up as well, just simply amazing.

jin choung
01-15-2010, 04:20 PM
It has nothing to do with having a beef.

There is not a single shot in the movie that could not have been done in Lightwave, or indeed pretty much any high-end renderer.

i believe it can be done in mental ray and prman... with lightwave, i've never seen a sustained global illumination piece that didn't have artifacting all over. i'm open to links.

jin

jin choung
01-15-2010, 05:07 PM
here you go..

in my extremely humble opinion, the vegetation is actually superior:

http://marlas.cgsociety.org/gallery/


what about it is "superior"?

they're both photoreal. absolutely real. i can show both to peeps and they'd both think photo.

at that point, there's no worthwhile hierarchy....

but the video still has the edge imo in terms of impressiveness because it's moving. not that paintfx can't do that but it's not demonstrated in the stills.

jin

jin choung
01-15-2010, 05:08 PM
that is the first example i show people whenever paint effects are brought up as well, just simply amazing.

you can show them avatar and king kong too.

yeah, paint fx is fing awesome.

jin

AdamAvenali
01-15-2010, 05:20 PM
you can show them avatar and king kong too.

yeah, paint fx is fing awesome.

jin

yeah, they are good as well :D

Stooch
01-15-2010, 06:49 PM
what about it is "superior"?

they're both photoreal. absolutely real. i can show both to peeps and they'd both think photo.

at that point, there's no worthwhile hierarchy....

but the video still has the edge imo in terms of impressiveness because it's moving. not that paintfx can't do that but it's not demonstrated in the stills.

jin

it is superior because it has higher complexity and there is grass in addition to foliage.

as far as "its not moviing"

lol is all i have to say.

jin choung
01-15-2010, 06:51 PM
it is superior because it has higher complexity.

inasmuch as there is shrubbery in real life that has less complexity, and the fact that the movie example does not look worse or fake because of less of complexity, i would not call more complexity better or superior.

as i said, they both look photoreal.

that's it.

no better or worse.

jin

jin choung
01-15-2010, 06:53 PM
as far as "its not moviing"

lol is all i have to say.

i don't see why you'd laugh at that... you can take a perfectly photoreal model of a person and make it look completely fake by animating it badly.

same thing.

the movie has the edge because it has one more aspect of reality properly mimicked - motion.

jin

Iain
01-16-2010, 02:50 AM
here you go..

in my extremely humble opinion, the vegetation is actually superior:

http://marlas.cgsociety.org/gallery/

be advised that EVERYTHING, even the blades of grass, are made with paint effects...

I've seen that before and it is exceptional but I'd argue the use of the term superior. Moot point though-eye of the beholder and all that.

I thought you were talking about another film. I've seen stills that beat even these for complexity and quality.

Iain
01-16-2010, 03:03 AM
as far as "its not moviing"

lol is all i have to say.

Why? Everything about this animation is done to perfection. A camera move of 6 inches has been thought through and carried out so well it makes you involuntarily go "oohh" (or was that just girly old me then?)

It's these little things you don't notice added to the amazing texturing, lighting and post work that all add up.

Captain Obvious
01-16-2010, 06:08 AM
i think that LW would choke on the complexity of the vegetation shots. Yes i know about HD instancing leaves... still though, you cant instance everything (especially if you want a healthy amount of diverse plants). at the very least, you would have to break the shots out into many passes... no thanks. Also, i have worked even with moderately complex shots in LW where simply loading the scenes would take 5-10 minutes... ewwww...

some of the simpler shots, sure, lw could do those comfortably... its all in the eye of the artist.
Oh, the vegetation would certainly be trickier in LW, but there are ways. I suppose you could just get a machine with a good 64 gigs or so of memory, and it would handle it fine even without instancing. Or you could do it in passes... There are ways it could have been done, for sure.

But yes, that was basically my point I suppose: the is really down to the artist. Saying this animation makes you want to buy Vray, is just foolish. If you're sitting on a copy of LW, or modo, or Blender, or pretty much any*3D animation software, as well as After Effects or Shake or whatever, you could definitely produce something with a similar look and as high quality as this, as long as you're good enough.



i believe it can be done in mental ray and prman... with lightwave, i've never seen a sustained global illumination piece that didn't have artifacting all over. i'm open to links.
Ok, here you go (http://www.youtube.com/user/cityscapeviz#p/u/5/ioRNK-wkqko)
Putting this animation in the same thread as Alex Roman's work seems a bit wrong, but I have no illusions about the quality level of this particular animation. However, I have been unable to spot any GI issues at all, and this is straight-up LW at around 10 minutes a frame.

Stooch
01-16-2010, 12:50 PM
I suppose you could just get a machine with a good 64 gigs or so of memory, and it would handle it fine even without instancing. Or you could do it in passes...

i already said you can do it in passes in my original post... but... eww... Id rather do it in a program that doesnt resort to passes as much.

also, 64 gigs handling without instancing? lol in your pipe dreams, ive seen LW come to its knees even at 64bit, just the act of loading such a scene would require a coffee break... i guess you COULD do anything in LW if you have infinite time and patience. However, I like to go home on time and have a life outside of work ;)

Stooch
01-16-2010, 12:55 PM
inasmuch as there is shrubbery in real life that has less complexity, and the fact that the movie example does not look worse or fake because of less of complexity, i would not call more complexity better or superior.

as i said, they both look photoreal.

that's it.

no better or worse.

jin

yes but a scene that looks "just as real" but has more complexity, has a higher chance of lookng "not real" because as you add complexity, you increase the chances of breaking the realness. So for me, having that extra factor of difficulty is what makes i more impressive.

as far as camera moves, there were absolutely no notable animation in Romans work. just subtle, tweened camera pans and some DOF flickering, as far as animation is concerned, its either a fail or a pass, not enough depth to the animation for a comprehensive assessment.

still beatiful work though, but anyway my original post was more about the comment that "you will want to get vray", not about camera animation. My point, overall. is that vRay in this example doesnt surpass mRay, so i dont get the urge to run out and grab myself a copy. (even though vRay is a really nice render engine and you wouldnt have to ask me twice to use it in a pipeline)

Captain Obvious
01-17-2010, 06:57 AM
also, 64 gigs handling without instancing? lol in your pipe dreams, ive seen LW come to its knees even at 64bit, just the act of loading such a scene would require a coffee break... i guess you COULD do anything in LW if you have infinite time and patience. However, I like to go home on time and have a life outside of work ;)
Pfft, having a life is for people who aren't OCDing over the concept of rendering foliage!

biliousfrog
01-17-2010, 07:08 AM
i believe it can be done in mental ray and prman... with lightwave, i've never seen a sustained global illumination piece that didn't have artifacting all over. i'm open to links.

jin

Except's stuff?

I used cached GI on my latest arch-viz project and it worked flawlessly. If it had loads of objects moving about in the scene it would probably have caused some headaches but static GI works great.

jin choung
01-18-2010, 12:04 AM
Except's stuff?

I used cached GI on my latest arch-viz project and it worked flawlessly. If it had loads of objects moving about in the scene it would probably have caused some headaches but static GI works great.

that's what i mean, moving stuff. i haven't seen a piece with animated stuff in frame where the GI is "perfect" and without artifacts and particularly without looking grainy or blotchy.

the v-ray examples at least are... perfect. and the mental ray and/or prman examples in avatar are also pretty darn perfect.

jin

Phrostbyte
01-18-2010, 01:07 AM
Pfft, having a life is for people who aren't OCDing over the concept of rendering foliage!

Don't say that
He is an outstanding artist who can convert measurement in his head from metric to english in maya and clearly has a healthy social life posting actively on a weekend. We are all inferior against the superior.

Captain Obvious
01-18-2010, 03:11 AM
Registering a new account for the singular purpose of trying to insult someone? Hah! :D

Mike_RB
01-18-2010, 07:28 AM
that's what i mean, moving stuff. i haven't seen a piece with animated stuff in frame where the GI is "perfect" and without artifacts and particularly without looking grainy or blotchy.

the v-ray examples at least are... perfect. and the mental ray and/or prman examples in avatar are also pretty darn perfect.

jin

I guess most of The Embassy's library of ad's and our work on Iron Man falls below this threshold of 'grainy or blotchy' you're talking about?

Captain Obvious
01-18-2010, 08:53 AM
I guess most of The Embassy's library of ad's and our work on Iron Man falls below this threshold of 'grainy or blotchy' you're talking about?
Did you guys use interpolated radiosity for it?

Mike_RB
01-18-2010, 09:05 AM
Did you guys use interpolated radiosity for it?

I'm sure we did on one or two projects, but I didn't realize his comment was exclusive to interpolated only.

Captain Obvious
01-18-2010, 09:07 AM
I'm sure we did on one or two projects, but I didn't realize his comment was exclusive to interpolated only.
Oh, I was just curious. Interpolated uncached GI on things that are moving around is a problem in most renderers. You know, flickering and such.

jin choung
01-20-2010, 02:06 AM
I'm sure we did on one or two projects, but I didn't realize his comment was exclusive to interpolated only.

i was talking about dynamically updating, non cached (and non baked) radiosity in a sustained animation. not talking about still frames.

whatever i've seen of embassy's stuff looked excellent. but the last things i remember were for iron man and that wasn't rendered in lw was it?

what stuff did you guys render in lw? and what of them used radiosity?

jin

jin choung
01-20-2010, 02:08 AM
Oh, I was just curious. Interpolated uncached GI on things that are moving around is a problem in most renderers. You know, flickering and such.

well whatever vray is doing with the video in the first post is doing something really really right.

i hear that for avatar, they precalculated stuff into something called spherical harmonic maps.

haven't the slightest fing clue wtf those things are precisely (after having read several web snippets even) but they sound cool and certainly produce good results.

jin

Captain Obvious
01-20-2010, 05:32 AM
well whatever vray is doing with the video in the first post is doing something really really right.
I'm not sure it's uncached.

Chris S. (Fez)
01-20-2010, 06:12 AM
haven't the slightest fing clue wtf those things are precisely (after having read several web snippets even) but they sound cool and certainly produce good results.

jin

Ha. Harmonic maps do sound cool. Up there with Han Solo's "inertial dampers".

My apologies if I already missed the discussion, but do you guys think Avatar is actually going to win THE oscar?