PDA

View Full Version : what's up with the Luxology gallery ?



sampei
04-03-2010, 07:46 AM
it's certainly not my intention to flame with a useless thread with "this is better than that" and "mine's bigger than your's" but I'm just back from the Luxology gallery and the stuff not only is incredible but there's so much of it and all from different users. I mean obviously our gallery has loads of amazing stuff too, but I do see a huge gap in the quantity of amazing models and cool ideas. For example I've just seen a render with spongebob and its more than awesome. Check it out if you have a minute.
I think I'm missing something here. If you think it's a useless thread sorry in advance, and yes I do tend to not look out of the small lightwave world...but I'm having a hard time understanding how this discrepancy came to be. And that gallery did blow me away, hence I felt like sharing my thoughts.

DBMiller
04-03-2010, 08:12 AM
No, it's not a useless thread. I also think NewTek should do a better job of showcasing artwork created with Lightwave. It should be right on the main page, easy to find, and full of the great art created here.

Infinite
04-03-2010, 09:07 AM
Couldn't agree more. I feel a change might be coming though and about time.

It's amazing that there is hardly anything about Avatar mentioned on the site, considering the amount of LW'ers who have said they worked on the project? or even any work examples listed in this thread - http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107930

Plus is seems the gallery hasn't been updated for a long time. Surely there is life still left in Lightwave?!

Matt
04-03-2010, 09:37 AM
Modo users seem to more prolific in their gallery submissions than LW users, plus a lot of very talented LW artists left shop and moved to Modo, so their work is no longer seen on these shores.

ingo
04-03-2010, 10:16 AM
Well it depends in what youre looking for, i still miss some excellent archviz renderings i see here or in the Kray gallery. It seems from the look at the gallery that Modo is only useful for small projects (people get lost in the shader-tree maybe ?)

sampei
04-03-2010, 10:34 AM
thanks for the replies folks, especially what Matt is saying is what I was afraid of...but still I'm sure there's gotta be ways to improve the situation.
It's cool how the most of the top wavers share their work: for example Lee's outstanding thread on simple skin is sure to help out many users and Matt your tutorials are awesome. Once again thanks guys ;) And there's plenty of other users that share their findings and help each other out and others make plugins that push lightwave's potential to the limit, and that's really cool. It's the proof that yes, there is still life in LightWave in the form of an active community that maybe just needs a little "push" to raise the bar and stand tall in front of it's "neighbours". It's nothing to do with being fanboys or anything else, it has do to with the fact that LightWave can produce outstanding art exactly like any other 3d package.

Captain Obvious
04-03-2010, 11:58 AM
Most of the stuff I do in Lightwave is covered in NDAs...

archijam
04-03-2010, 02:55 PM
Number one difference between LW and modo gallery?

LW gallery is a forum. derailed, deriled, no official pat on the back from NT.

modo gallery is an official gallery, in the modo page, which is connected to a separate forum post somewhere. The images are sigled out by lux, and promoted. You can't comment, so you dont get strange thread derailments.


I think this give more reason to post... which again goes abck to matt's observations.


and dont say there is a gallery on the official lightwave page, it's separate, seldom updated, and there is no reason AT ALL for an actual lightwave user to visit that page, it is only for potential new users. I think this is an important fact to remedy with the release of core - give me a reason to check out the LW site! don't just make it an advertisement.

: )

Matt
04-03-2010, 03:07 PM
It's cool how the most of the top wavers share their work: for example Lee's outstanding thread on simple skin is sure to help out many users and Matt your tutorials are awesome. Once again thanks guys ;).

I'm not sure I would put myself in the category of a 'top waver', but thanks anyway! :D

monovich
04-03-2010, 03:21 PM
I have no data to back it up, but LW seems to attract a different user than MODO.
LW = Studios and FX people mostly?
Modo = I'm not sure, but perhaps users more apt to create single images great for galleries?

OnlineRender
04-03-2010, 03:30 PM
Modo is a "ok" axis in glasgow have several modo users .

Nemoid
04-04-2010, 03:34 AM
yes i think Lw needs a real gallery like the Luxology one, and a video section too. It's the best to showcase LW artworks. Also, I'd use massively Things like Youtube, Vimeo and Facebook.:lwicon:

sampei
04-04-2010, 09:36 AM
Modo is a "ok" axis in glasgow have several modo users .
yes, one of our instructors in university used to work and has friends there. He showed us some stuff that was done for killzone2 and it was very impressive :)

geo_n
04-04-2010, 10:00 AM
Modo gallery I usually see freelance type work of model showcase.
But that could change with more animation related stuff.

erikals
04-06-2010, 07:20 AM
we discussed this some time back,
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=5&t=858611

so, it's no better, however it is more exposed.

erikals
04-06-2010, 07:41 AM
also see,
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107023

sampei
04-06-2010, 07:46 AM
I never said there isn't any awesome stuff in the LW galleries, however IMHO there's much more cool stuff in the Luxology one. And obviously better exposed.
And it's not like I'm never in the finisihed work galleries, actually the opposite.

Greenlaw
04-06-2010, 12:35 PM
Most of the stuff I do in Lightwave is covered in NDAs...

Same here. :(

Elmar Moelzer
04-06-2010, 01:05 PM
I think that the Luxology renderer is still inferior to LWs, even the old LW renderer in terms of output quality. LWs renderer produces much more natural images. I dont quite know what it is about the Lux renderer that looks wrong. Maybe they are doing something with their buffers, but it seems like the renderings get more desaturated in darker areas. Really strange.

Captain Obvious
04-06-2010, 02:59 PM
LWs renderer produces much more natural images.
I did some tests with this a long time ago (modo 2, I think). It's mostly down to the settings you use.

Elmar Moelzer
04-06-2010, 03:06 PM
I did some tests with this a long time ago (modo 2, I think). It's mostly down to the settings you use.

Well almost all of the renderings in the Modo Gallery have this look to them. It looks very CGish. I have not seen a single photorealistic rendering there. They all have this issue. I cant quite pin it down, but people here in the office think that there is a desaturation of colors going on when things get darker.

Nicolas Jordan
04-06-2010, 03:14 PM
I think that the Luxology renderer is still inferior to LWs, even the old LW renderer in terms of output quality. LWs renderer produces much more natural images. I dont quite know what it is about the Lux renderer that looks wrong. Maybe they are doing something with their buffers, but it seems like the renderings get more desaturated in darker areas. Really strange.

I think it has alot to do with gamma settings and linear work flow stuff.

Titus
04-06-2010, 03:37 PM
Most of the stuff I do in Lightwave is covered in NDAs...

Everybody work with NDAs, but at the end of the day AD et al collect pretty good reels.

scratch33
04-06-2010, 03:55 PM
I think that the Luxology renderer is still inferior to LWs, even the old LW renderer in terms of output quality. LWs renderer produces much more natural images. I dont quite know what it is about the Lux renderer that looks wrong. Maybe they are doing something with their buffers, but it seems like the renderings get more desaturated in darker areas. Really strange.

Totally agree with this. I use both renderer. But when I want a more "natural" or realistic look, I use always lightwave.
Your right on modo's render. there his a modo style. always the same. You can always recognize a modo picture...:hey:

of course, the modo renderer is still fantastic and I use it often for product visualization like packaging and cg look.

Captain Obvious
04-06-2010, 04:35 PM
Everybody work with NDAs, but at the end of the day AD et al collect pretty good reels.
Yeah, but a lot of the stuff I do is covered in NDAs even after it's been delivered to the client...



As for modo's renderer, it certainly does NOT desaturate darker colours. However, modo applies a gamma correction of 1.6 by default Lightwave does not.

Mike_RB
04-06-2010, 04:40 PM
Yeah, but a lot of the stuff I do is covered in NDAs even after it's been delivered to the client...



As for modo's renderer, it certainly does NOT desaturate darker colours. However, modo applies a gamma correction of 1.6 by default — Lightwave does not.

Yeah, there is a lot of stunning work on there that has no "look" as far as identifying a renderer.

For example Gelmi's work:
http://www.luxology.com/community/profile.aspx?name=gelmi
His parrot is excellent:
http://www.luxology.com/gallery/image.aspx?id=5454

Or this by PaQ Wak:
http://www.luxology.com/gallery/image.aspx?id=9138

Or these, by me:
http://www.luxology.com/gallery/image.aspx?id=7138
http://www.luxology.com/gallery/image.aspx?id=7

Intuition
04-06-2010, 06:23 PM
Totally disagree with anyone who thinks LW renderer is better then modo.

Modo's renderer is much better then LW's in quite a few aspects.

First and foremost is the fact that the modo defaults are setup closer to LWF with gamma space of 2.2. Even though the defaults are gamma 1.6 its still slightly more photo looking in its default settings then Lighwave. This gives images a bit more or a tangible "I can touch it" feel to them.

Now, I wont go into the shader tree as myself and other testers have asked for a nodal setup in modo and in this regard Lightwave users can say LW is better and I wont argue.

Yet the results I generally get from modo from just doodling with the renderer are always nicer then Lightwave. I think reflection blurring, GI, micropoly displacement and light fall offs are a large part of modo's renderer being better. With Lightwave I always feel I am battling off that last 10% CG look. With Modo/vray/mental ray I feel like I can get rid if the CG look initially.

modo, prelim klipsch logo design. Even at this early stage clients are happy. Again, this is a doodling render. Not even trying to really control lighting.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/783/detailqualitycloseuc8.jpg

Vray doodle render. Generally unfinished scene. Sun outside, DoF added.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/818/chair1gj2.jpg

Now, can I get these results from Lightwave? Probably, with the exception of micropoly displacement and maybe the reflection blur, but overall one could achieve these things. Yet I am always finding it easier to get great results out of modo or Vray since the defaults generally point you towards lwf which overall feel more photoreal then Lightwave. I mean in Lightwave I have a default scene with all the gamma set up properly if I need to use LW but overall even with proper fall offs and such I tend to like modo better.

yes I do agree though, modo's shader tree leaves much to be desired in large scene setups. Hopefully that will change someday. Meanwhile Vray is my output engine.

Core's engine may be getting better default output setups. This is wise and is more congruent to making images which look great from the get go, even when doodling, which in turn, makes great gallery posts.

Now I am not going to say you can't do most things iwth LW. You can do it on LW, just that I can achieve nicer results much easier in modo in general quicker.

I believe this is true no matter who learns it which is why modo is flooded with great images.

Intuition
04-06-2010, 07:11 PM
One thing I forgot to mention and should not be ignored is the fact that modo has a realtime previewer that works with all of its internal shaders (reflection blurring, SSS, gi, displacement, etc) and it also shows your target gamma result. Now couple that with f_prime's limitations with LW's current shader set and you have a large difference in realtime feedback. In modo I can keep doing minor tweaks here and there until I see the result I am looking for removing hours of test rendering in some situations. Surely this also contributes to the high quality image output.

Titus
04-06-2010, 11:48 PM
Another point:

I've the impression (maybe I'm mistaken) LW renderer loads all the geometry and never tries any type of bucketing to free memory/speed render. My understanding is that Modo does bucketing.

realgray
04-07-2010, 12:15 AM
Hey Intuition. Could you recommend any training resources for Vray. I haven't been able to find much. Thanks and great work

Intuition
04-07-2010, 01:13 AM
Hey Intuition. Could you recommend any training resources for Vray. I haven't been able to find much. Thanks and great work

I sure can. :D

Lots of tuts here.

http://vray.info/

Here is a quick LWF in max Vray.

http://www.aversis.be/tutorials/vray/essential_gamma_01.htm

Which Vray you interested in running? Max, Maya, XSI?

Remember Vray will render fast if ...

- you work with Irradiance/Ligh cache
- you check "store with irradiance map" for each VrayLight (finally you can increase subdiv)
- you use Adaptive DMC sampler (value such as 1min/3max minimum spread maybe have max go upwards of 12-24 depending on scene complexity, 0,005 seems great to me for quality vs time)
- you check "use light cache for glossy rays"
- you Always "Treat glossy rays as GI" in your materials (and say goodbye to white dots)

Checking "sub-pixel mapping" and "clamp output" can also speed up rendering in some scenes.

Try not to use image filtering at all.

setup gamma to 2.2 but also check "don't effect colors" this way you can save out EXR's properly without adding the 2.2 curve twice. Just make sure to use the sRGB button in the Vray frame buffer so you are seeing the proper final result.

Also, noticed Mike_RB's post with modo images. Super nice. :D

Mike has some great renders using Lightwave in Ironman. So amazing. Like I said. Lightwave can do it. I just wuss out.

Though, I must say that the Core videos showing the core realtime VPR will probably up the gallery output a lot more since, like modo, it will give lots of feedback, focusing great output quicker.

I am excited to be a part of the core process and see new innovative technology get developed and shaped by both developers and users. :)

realgray
04-07-2010, 02:18 AM
Thanks! Would be running Vray out of Max mainly for Archviz and Motion Graphics with the occasional vfx shot. Thanks again, great tips!

Captain Obvious
04-07-2010, 04:35 AM
Another point:

I've the impression (maybe I'm mistaken) LW renderer loads all the geometry and never tries any type of bucketing to free memory/speed render. My understanding is that Modo does bucketing.
modo's render engine does memory cycling of polygons whenever necessary and possible, but it is not related to the fact that modo is a bucket renderer as such. Is also does some clever handling of images: it will only load the required resolution. It's nowhere near as powerful as db&w's infiniMap, mind you, but it does mean that if you have an 8k image that's so far in the background that the 256x256 version gets loaded, modo will only actually keep the low-res one in memory.

Lightwave has to keep the entire scene and the entire framebuffer in memory. It does not do anything clever in that regard. Unless you buy infiniMap. :)


One of the things I like about Lightwave's render engine is the custom shaders and the node tree. I can build stuff as I need it, to do effects not possible with the regular shading options or to speed things up. One of my usual tricks is to use reflective ambient occlusion to give nice and soft reflections to things, without greatly impacting render times. It doesn't show any detail in the reflections, true, but it renders really quickly and is great for adding a soft sheen to things.

Elmar Moelzer
04-07-2010, 06:04 AM
Mike, none of the Modo- renders that you posted looks realistic with the exception of the fly and the cameras maybe.
The Cameras are quite small and you rarely see a fly that close up, so it is hard to see errors.
The rest looks very artificial. The shading is always off. As I said, maybe I am wrong about the desaturation of darker areas, but I am not the only one who sees the problem. Everybody in the office here sees it too.
That said, Modos renderer is still good and the previewing and quick setup certainly are awesome. I just dont like the final results as much as the ones I have seen come out of LWs renderer. In Modo everything looks like there is some kind of grey fog over it, or something like that. Hard to put it into words. Anyway, I would call myself a fool, if it was only me seeing it. But I am NOT the only one.
I have barely seen one photoreal rendering in the Modo gallery. They all look artificial.

probiner
04-07-2010, 06:49 AM
Mike will tell you to calibrate your monitor, Elmar :D

TheGarf
04-07-2010, 07:54 AM
Yeah, and please show some LW images that don't have the 'grey fog' you're talking about.

SAHiN
04-07-2010, 08:01 AM
Totally disagree with anyone who thinks LW renderer is better then modo.

Modo's renderer is much better then LW's in quite a few aspects.

First and foremost is the fact that the modo defaults are setup closer to LWF with gamma space of 2.2. Even though the defaults are gamma 1.6 its still slightly more photo looking in its default settings then Lighwave. This gives images a bit more or a tangible "I can touch it" feel to them.

Now, I wont go into the shader tree as myself and other testers have asked for a nodal setup in modo and in this regard Lightwave users can say LW is better and I wont argue.

Yet the results I generally get from modo from just doodling with the renderer are always nicer then Lightwave. I think reflection blurring, GI, micropoly displacement and light fall offs are a large part of modo's renderer being better. With Lightwave I always feel I am battling off that last 10% CG look. With Modo/vray/mental ray I feel like I can get rid if the CG look initially.

modo, prelim klipsch logo design. Even at this early stage clients are happy. Again, this is a doodling render. Not even trying to really control lighting.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/783/detailqualitycloseuc8.jpg

Vray doodle render. Generally unfinished scene. Sun outside, DoF added.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/818/chair1gj2.jpg

Now, can I get these results from Lightwave? Probably, with the exception of micropoly displacement and maybe the reflection blur, but overall one could achieve these things. Yet I am always finding it easier to get great results out of modo or Vray since the defaults generally point you towards lwf which overall feel more photoreal then Lightwave. I mean in Lightwave I have a default scene with all the gamma set up properly if I need to use LW but overall even with proper fall offs and such I tend to like modo better.

yes I do agree though, modo's shader tree leaves much to be desired in large scene setups. Hopefully that will change someday. Meanwhile Vray is my output engine.

Core's engine may be getting better default output setups. This is wise and is more congruent to making images which look great from the get go, even when doodling, which in turn, makes great gallery posts.

Now I am not going to say you can't do most things iwth LW. You can do it on LW, just that I can achieve nicer results much easier in modo in general quicker.

I believe this is true no matter who learns it which is why modo is flooded with great images.


Hmmm..
I have problem with LW programming team for not fixing bugs or not doucmenting the tools properly etc.
However, I'm frankly tired of hearing these things about Modo is better, Vray is faster etc etc.

Giving me an angle of a chair with lots of DOF aint gonna impress me.
I need to know render times, and I need to see the actual render before post to say oh yes, this is convincing..

Here are couple of images done in LW..no KRAY, no VRAY, no MENTALRAY, no post no nothing..! Pure lightwave.

As for people switching to modo or other applications, we have a saying where I come from "fresh **** attracts too many flies"..

Can someone point me to a show or film done in modo ?
Somone spending his 3 months working on one image is not an achievement, tell me if we can create this and render them at 25fps 90min long in total of about 130,000 frames? Can we still keep this quality ?

forget updating gallery images.. Update 9.6 and fix reported bugs..!
Or fire the programmers and hire the ones who will fix the bugs..!

Nangleator
04-07-2010, 08:23 AM
...reflective ambient occlusion...
Captain Obvious, could you give me a further hint on this? Just a list of nodes, in order, would be helpful.

In my experience, blurred reflections are a big render hit. I'd love to find a better way, but ambient occlusion seems to be a big render hit, too.

geo_n
04-07-2010, 09:25 AM
Just to compare with vray render. Btw Sahin, we were waiting for flicker free gi animation long time already but you never posted again :D
kidding
I like lw renderer for its simplicity and power. But can't be compared to vray but so is its price almost as expensive as lw. kray is close but with limited compositing and lighting features its hard to use besides stills and walkthrough. And the price is reasonable especially if you're into archiviz.

Modo I tried for the demo and I was impressed. Just that shader tree!!

vray renders.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/23/vray00002.th.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/vray00002.jpg/)

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/776/vray00001.th.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/vray00001.jpg/)

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3618/vray00010.th.jpg (http://img535.imageshack.us/i/vray00010.jpg/)

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/2002/vray00009.th.jpg (http://img541.imageshack.us/i/vray00009.jpg/)

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6717/vray00008.th.jpg (http://img704.imageshack.us/i/vray00008.jpg/)

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/5366/vray00007.th.jpg (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/vray00007.jpg/)

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/525/vray00004.th.jpg (http://img52.imageshack.us/i/vray00004.jpg/)

sampei
04-07-2010, 09:55 AM
One of my usual tricks is to use reflective ambient occlusion to give nice and soft reflections to things, without greatly impacting render times. It doesn't show any detail in the reflections, true, but it renders really quickly and is great for adding a soft sheen to things.
I seriously think you should do a small tutorial on this, just a suggestion :)

sampei
04-07-2010, 10:02 AM
In Modo everything looks like there is some kind of grey fog over it, or something like that. Hard to put it into words. Anyway, I would call myself a fool, if it was only me seeing it. But I am NOT the only one.
I have barely seen one photoreal rendering in the Modo gallery. They all look artificial.
I believe you when you say you see this "grey fog", but even after trying hard to see it while browsing the gallery, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about !
as for ALL of the renders looking artificial don't you think you are exaggerating a bit ? I've seen many renders that are very close imo, some have a really nice illustration feel to them.

peterpaw
04-07-2010, 10:20 AM
Good lighting and color bleeding, but that noise on dark parts of images IMO really disqualifies this products as a 'high-end' work. A probs with tonal mapping and AA? Something with material parameters? Or maybe these images are after heavy correction...
What about render time? What resolution?

Anyway, LW has great photorealistic renderer, great nodal system and personally, I don't wanna nothing more.
Of course, we need a few improvements like micro displacement (the details!), better AA, (bucket rendering, etc) but these things only helps to get photorealistic images, but not create them.


regards,
peter

Intuition
04-07-2010, 11:29 AM
Giving me an angle of a chair with lots of DOF aint gonna impress me.
I need to know render times, and I need to see the actual render before post to say oh yes, this is convincing..

Here are couple of images done in LW..no KRAY, no VRAY, no MENTALRAY, no post no nothing..! Pure lightwave.

As for people switching to modo or other applications, we have a saying where I come from "fresh **** attracts too many flies"..



And I can't really disagree that a chair with DoF should impress you but rather the color subtleties that are throughout the image. This is Vray's strength, the small invisible details that are not just mistakes or noise problems. Yes I would say I am not the best example but still, as I mentioned before, just doodling with it gives me a nice result. Same with modo. In the Klipsch logo the color/light falloffs and bounce inside the K as well as the tiny micro poly displacements around the beveled edges (the mesh is actually subD with tight bounds to keep the text sharp). These quiet details are easier for me to get in modo, Vray.

I do like your images with Lightwave and it does show that, like I said, Lightwave can do great imagery. Heck, that image in the gallery with the train and flock of sheep just kills and is probably my favorite image ever made in Lightwave or any other package.

But ripping on modo as fresh **** isn't really necessary. I am not trying to rip on LW rather to say that for myself I tend to have less trouble getting the look I want in modo or Vray. I am just saying that from a technical standpoint LW is not better then modo's render engine due to technical merits which manifest themselves in a seemingly endless supply of images in the modo gallery. Heck I have seen people open modo as thier first package and doodle a few shapes together and render them out and they look so good. That kind of default settings and render quality is why modo is filled with a huge gallery.

I will say that I do think your interior shots in LW look really good and are exemplary. :D :thumbsup:

Captain Obvious
04-07-2010, 01:01 PM
I seriously think you should do a small tutorial on this, just a suggestion :)
Sure. Send me a PM or I will forget.

realgray
04-07-2010, 01:33 PM
Not to start a flame war but doesn't Modo's renderer fail when it comes to animation? I've heard from a number of people about GI flicker (and noise) in Modo when it comes to animation. Maybe they have fixed this with the latest version? I usually render my stills in Modo while all animation goes through lightwave.

MentalFish
04-07-2010, 01:58 PM
This is lookin pretty nice I must say: http://www.luxology.com/gallery/video.aspx?id=188

Elmar Moelzer
04-07-2010, 02:32 PM
I believe you when you say you see this "grey fog", but even after trying hard to see it while browsing the gallery, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about !
Ok, maybe I just can not put my finger on it, or I cant describe it, but something is really odd about all or almost all of the renderings in the modo gallery.


as for ALL of the renders looking artificial don't you think you are exaggerating a bit ? I've seen many renders that are very close imo, some have a really nice illustration feel to them.
Illustriation feel is not photorealistic. I was talking about photorealism.
Please point me to photorealistic modo renders. At least on the Lux page, I have seen maybe two that are convincing. All the others have something strange going on in them. As I said, it is not just me who sees it. Others have seen it as well.

In any case it is not so that I am looking at Modo renders and sitting there with an open mouth. I have seen better stuff done with LW. Heck I have done better stuff with LW myself.. ten years ago. Sorry to say that.

Mike_RB
04-07-2010, 03:34 PM
This is lookin pretty nice I must say: http://www.luxology.com/gallery/video.aspx?id=188

Thanks. That and my air conditioner ones show you can do animated GI in modo pretty easily as well.

This one:
http://www.luxology.com/gallery/video.aspx?id=521

erikals
04-07-2010, 04:17 PM
emm,... ignore, wrong thread.

MentalFish
04-07-2010, 04:51 PM
Thanks. That and my air conditioner ones show you can do animated GI in modo pretty easily as well.

This one:
http://www.luxology.com/gallery/video.aspx?id=521

Nice one!

So ye, people, just give it up, both modo and LW can create hyper/photo/whatever-you-wanna-call-it-realism. I find it difficult/weird how modo handles materials, but that's me being a nitwit and thinking "... that's not how it is in LW..." and then go back to LW to GSD. Not modo's fault per se, just me not taking the time to get into the jive in modo.

hunter
04-07-2010, 05:37 PM
I think most LWers are just too busy working to be making photo real Sponge Bob's. :D

Elmar Moelzer
04-08-2010, 03:57 AM
The airconditioner does look nice!
Great animation too! Probably the best piece on the Lux website.

SAHiN
04-08-2010, 04:02 AM
Just to compare with vray render. Btw Sahin, we were waiting for flicker free gi animation long time already but you never posted again :D
kidding
I like lw renderer for its simplicity and power. But can't be compared to vray but so is its price almost as expensive as lw. kray is close but with limited compositing and lighting features its hard to use besides stills and walkthrough. And the price is reasonable especially if you're into archiviz.

Modo I tried for the demo and I was impressed. Just that shader tree!!

vray renders.


Geo_n, I did post an animation back than dude. You must have missed it. When all those vray fanatics started twisting the subject I decided there was no point in carrying on with the argument.

Since I have no worries standing behind my word, here is another animation for you. Just to show I don't work with single images. I never have never will.. i had to deliver 8 mins of animated archviz video to my clients. My shortest paid job is 4 mins. So animation power is important to me.

I hope you enjoy the flicker free animation :)

Intuition, thank you. :) I appriciate your nice comments about my work.
I sure understand that every application has its strong points and weaknesses. So does Lightwave, and so does vray or modo. My point is, we souldn't be saying this is better than that unless it really is that way.
Since I know modo has lots of flickering issues with animation, I really see no point in this argument, because for fact I know modo has to do better than create one frame images.
As for vray, if I was using vray, I would go bankrupt waiting for it to render animations here :)

My render times for attached animation was 10.m per frame at 720p on core2quad machine with 8gb ram.
If any 3d application can better that, I will switch.

Having said that, once NT stops fixing bugs on original LW and moves totaly on to Core, I will switch to Maya because I have no intention of learning NT version of Maya. IMHO they should improve on original LW coding and take it on top of the list again. Where once upon a time Max and applications alike didn't even have lens flares or volumetrics are now competing with LW on every aspect of animation should tell NT how bad their coding team is really doing.

geo_n
04-08-2010, 06:24 AM
Sahin, looks great. But this is a walkthrough. This is static gi cache.
The thread before was getting flicker free animation of moving and deforming objects with gi. And so far only vray and fprime does it well for commercial renderers.
Many tricks were proposed including an f9 render lscript but really its a hit and miss when it comes to indoor scene with lots of gi bounce and moving objects. As of now faking it is the best way and lw can do that well.

SAHiN
04-08-2010, 07:30 AM
Sahin, looks great. But this is a walkthrough. This is static gi cache.
The thread before was getting flicker free animation of moving and deforming objects with gi. And so far only vray and fprime does it well for commercial renderers.
Many tricks were proposed including an f9 render lscript but really its a hit and miss when it comes to indoor scene with lots of gi bounce and moving objects. As of now faking it is the best way and lw can do that well.

Lets bake textureeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees Sahin likes faaaaas t rendeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers :P

Captain Obvious
04-08-2010, 11:38 AM
And so far only vray and fprime does it well for commercial renderers.
Kray does a pretty good job at it if things don't change too quickly. It's got an option for interpolating the GI from frame to frame. It's really quite handy.

erikals
04-09-2010, 06:09 AM
Lets bake textureeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees Sahin likes faaaaas t rendeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers :P

unless you have reflections in the scene ;]

sampei
04-12-2010, 02:55 AM
Ok, maybe I just can not put my finger on it, or I cant describe it, but something is really odd about all or almost all of the renderings in the modo gallery.


Illustriation feel is not photorealistic. I was talking about photorealism.
Please point me to photorealistic modo renders. At least on the Lux page, I have seen maybe two that are convincing. All the others have something strange going on in them. As I said, it is not just me who sees it. Others have seen it as well.

In any case it is not so that I am looking at Modo renders and sitting there with an open mouth. I have seen better stuff done with LW. Heck I have done better stuff with LW myself.. ten years ago. Sorry to say that.

well I really don't have time to start linking renders that impressed me, one I really liked was the girl for the vintage coke add. But to say that you've done better stuff 10 years ago, just sounds a bit extreme because you're talking about ALL modo renders.
You're saying I've done "better" stuff than "all" the modo renders ten years ago. So how is your stuff better ? In realism ? Is that the only parameter that you use to judge a 3d still ?
It sounds like you are prejudiced in your opinion, and I don't think that's fair towards the artists that have posted in that gallery, but you are indeed free to think that. Or maybe I am getting the wrong impression.
I really don't want to discuss this further, I was just impressed with quality and variety of the stills. That's all, I didn't want to start comparing renders from one side and the other and see which is the most photorealistic. I really couldn't care less.
Personally I don't need an image to be photorealistic for me to appreciate it, but that's just me ;)

sampei
04-12-2010, 03:02 AM
This is lookin pretty nice I must say: http://www.luxology.com/gallery/video.aspx?id=188

awesome :thumbsup:

Elmar Moelzer
04-12-2010, 04:44 AM
It sounds like you are prejudiced in your opinion, and I don't think that's fair towards the artists that have posted in that gallery, but you are indeed free to think that. Or maybe I am getting the wrong impression.

Ok, let me rephrase it:
I have seen much better stuff than anything in this gallery, regardless the topic, 10 years ago. I myself have done stuff myself that looked better than quite a few of the things in this gallery, 10 years ago.
I was answering to a thread that initially claimed a huge gap in quality of the images in the Lux gallery versus the LW renderings posted here and elsewhere.
The girl in the vintage coke add looks OK, but does not blow me away in terms of realism. There have been posts of much more realistic characters here.
The shading is overdone. She looks so translucent that she resembles a blow up doll more than a real life human. Again, I have seen much better stuff done a few years ago with LW.
Oh and I am judgeing the realism in renderings that are obviously meant to look realistic.
In terms of realism and overall quality, I would say that the things made by a single user, gelmi stick out. At least to me. I may be judgemental, but so was the original premise of this thread.

sampei
04-12-2010, 05:22 AM
I may be judgemental, but so was the original premise of this thread.

nope, with this reply you have proven that you have misread my first post. The "premise" of the initial thread was simply that I was really impressed by the quantity of great work and by the variety of the ideas, as I wrote in the first post.
I never said "every piece in the modo gallery is better than anything on the lightwave gallery" or claimed "huge gaps between images produced in one or another app" because I would hate to mindlessly generalize in such a way. However, I repeat that in my opinion when comparing the two galleries there is a lot more cool stuff.
This is just a personal opinion dictated by my own preferences. Probably what contributes to this impression is the way the modo one is layed out, with each artist having their latest and best work while here I have to search through pages of threads.
But David is working towards that, and I'm sure he will do a fantastic job of highlighting the best work, as it deserves to be.

Captain Obvious
04-19-2010, 12:21 PM
In any case it is not so that I am looking at Modo renders and sitting there with an open mouth. I have seen better stuff done with LW. Heck I have done better stuff with LW myself.. ten years ago. Sorry to say that.
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I thought these were pretty good:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GytCEf4Ojpw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXwel89p59c

erikals
04-19-2010, 12:47 PM
reminds me of T4 somehow http://erikalstad.com/backup/anims.php_files/smile.gif

Mike_RB
04-19-2010, 01:31 PM
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I thought these were pretty good:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GytCEf4Ojpw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXwel89p59c

Thanks. Thats xsi animated and modo rendered. Quick turnaround project, we're doing 5 of these types of ad's.

Captain Obvious
04-19-2010, 01:44 PM
Thanks. Thats xsi animated and modo rendered. Quick turnaround project, we're doing 5 of these types of ad's.
I hope you don't mind me reposting them. :) I thought they were a good example of modo renders that didn't have a particular "modo look."

Elmar Moelzer
04-19-2010, 03:44 PM
It does look pretty good, but it is hard to see details in those low res Youtube videos (youtube quality really sucks).

Captain Obvious
04-19-2010, 04:05 PM
(youtube quality really sucks).

There's HD on Youtube, which is pretty decent quality. Not for all videos, though. :(

sampei
04-20-2010, 06:31 AM
pretty darn cool stuff Mike !

Elmar Moelzer
04-20-2010, 12:03 PM
There's HD on Youtube, which is pretty decent quality

The SD on Vimeo looks better than the HD on Youtube, unfortunately.

erikals
04-20-2010, 05:04 PM
Vimeo does look much better

MacDoggie
04-21-2010, 10:36 AM
Thanks. Thats xsi animated and modo rendered. Quick turnaround project, we're doing 5 of these types of ad's.


Very nice Mike!! Well done, and it looks every bit as good as you can get in LW. Personally I feel the quality of rendering capabilities between LW and Modo are very very close. I don't really have a preference for either as the both look great with all due respects Elmar (and you know i have the greatest respect for you) I feel the look and feel of either rendering engine is determined by the practitioner not the software. Buying LW over Modo or vice versa in regards to the rendering engine is an issue of semantics. I also don't necessarily agree that the Modo Gallery is better but itdoes represent a viable aspect of modo that is well represented and personally I feel the images up there are every bit a good if not better than anything you can produce in LW. Neither one is going to assure you the best images. That my friend relies solely on the practitioner IMHO....:D

Cheers

rapscallion
04-21-2010, 11:25 PM
The gallery pages for Lightwave used to be great...categorized sensibly with tons of high quality work...then one day it just disappeared and was replaced with a few images slapped into a table layout...I'm not saying that the images in the current 'gallery' aren't nice, but I used to cruise the Lightwave gallery constantly for reference and enjoyment - even had dozens of images bookmarked in categories of my own for quick look-up, such as:

Lighting Ref

Skin Ref

Composition Ref

and so on...I guess it all changed when they moved to v9...but I wouldn't really mind if they put back up the old gallery and just tagged each image with an indicator for which version was used - or, hey, don't even bother with the tags...I just want to see all my favorite renders again! I mean, am I the only one who misses the Pisong renders!??!

anyway...I love Lightwave and was really happy when I read that Ambient Occlusion is now an open gl feature in Core (and presumably nearly real-time renderable on a scene level, as opposed to requiring attachment by surface nodes to every object?)...so great things are happening, but let's not forget where it all started: BRING BACK THE GALLERY!!!

erikals
04-21-2010, 11:46 PM
actually, i feel the opposite.

but regardless, from what i've seen of new features tells me that we're about to see cooler stuff in the LW galleries in the near future. (ey, maybe even from me... :P

i miss The Rippers posts a bit, i know he moved to Modo, but from what i read wasn't happy totally with that either.
not sure what he does now... http://www.tkio.net/Welcome.html

LW
http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/subway_000.html
http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/TC_000.html
http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/P206_000.html
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20816&page=2
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18279
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8599&page=5

realgray
04-22-2010, 01:52 AM
Great work Mike! Could you tell us why you chose to render the ad in modo as opposed to Mental? Modo should really show work like this as proof that their render engine holds up well under animation and it's not just for stills.

sampei
04-22-2010, 03:47 AM
Very nice Mike!! Well done, and it looks every bit as good as you can get in LW. Personally I feel the quality of rendering capabilities between LW and Modo are very very close. I don't really have a preference for either as the both look great with all due respects Elmar (and you know i have the greatest respect for you) I feel the look and feel of either rendering engine is determined by the practitioner not the software. Buying LW over Modo or vice versa in regards to the rendering engine is an issue of semantics. I also don't necessarily agree that the Modo Gallery is better but itdoes represent a viable aspect of modo that is well represented and personally I feel the images up there are every bit a good if not better than anything you can produce in LW. Neither one is going to assure you the best images. That my friend relies solely on the practitioner IMHO....:D

Cheers

Couldn't agree more with everything. :thumbsup:

sampei
04-22-2010, 03:53 AM
actually, i feel the opposite.

but regardless, from what i've seen of new features tells me that we're about to see cooler stuff in the LW galleries in the near future. (ey, maybe even from me... :P

i miss The Rippers posts a bit, i know he moved to Modo, but from what i read wasn't happy totally with that either.
not sure what he does now... http://www.tkio.net/Welcome.html

LW
http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/subway_000.html
http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/TC_000.html
http://www.tkio.net/Content/Artworks/P206_000.html
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20816&page=2
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18279
http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8599&page=5

yeah that's some cracking stuff, really really impressive. I also am quite sure that the new LightWave galleries are gonna rock.
Having a gallery like this also can be a potent motivator in my opinion.
I'm taking my time exploring the spinquad one and I'm loving it btw.

Mike_RB
04-22-2010, 09:23 AM
Great work Mike! Could you tell us why you chose to render the ad in modo as opposed to Mental? Modo should really show work like this as proof that their render engine holds up well under animation and it's not just for stills.

Thanks guys. We're fans of modo so we like to try using it on stuff like this to help with their development.. We ran into a few bugs using it in heavy production and we like to get that feedback to them. Also for quick turnaround jobs it's a real winner.

MacDoggie
04-22-2010, 11:32 AM
Thanks guys. We're fans of modo so we like to try using it on stuff like this to help with their development.. We ran into a few bugs using it in heavy production and we like to get that feedback to them. Also for quick turnaround jobs it's a real winner.

I have been toying with Modo for animation and I most likely will wait till 501 to really put Modo out there in the position LW currently fills (animation. I am still getting used to Modo's way/style of animation. Perhaps it is just a matter of acclimation but it still doesn't have the same flow as LW. Plus IMO it is easier to set up in LW as opposed to modo. Practitioners of Modo claim that it is infinitely better (Modo's approach to animation) but I must confess, I am not getting that impression. I am going to continue to try to get a handle (when I have he time) and hopefully something will click. But for now LW just feels so much better and the flow is more fluid as opposed to all of the somewhat convoluted feel of Modo's protocol (based on my perceptions). I liken it to acclimating myself to Mod's Shader Tree. While I totally agree that it is not the end all, be all that Luxology wants us to believe. I will say one thing, I can at this point actually see the method to the maddess and now can actually appreciate what that someone at Luxology had in mind. However, they need to find some way to help streamline the process of the Shader Tree somehow. Despite any issues I have with Modo and yes, it has some issues. I still find Modo to be a very nice 3D tool with a lot of potential... I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Modo...:hey::hey: