PDA

View Full Version : Sub pixel displacement



Dan Ritchie
01-06-2018, 12:48 PM
It seems like (parametric shapes) are Lightwave Groups answer to users demand for sub pixel subdivision. I'm surprised there's been no discussion on them so far.
Anybody doing anything interesting with them yet?

prometheus
01-06-2018, 01:03 PM
It seems like custom objects are Lightwave Groups answer to users demand for sub pixel subdivision. I'm surprised there's been no discussion on them so far.
Anybody doing anything interesting with them yet?

You mean the parametric shapes?
http://static.lightwave3d.com/marketing/lightwave_2018/release/parametric-shapes.html


those are cool, may be render expensive, not sure, and some of the samples are slow to use in VPR, but you could possibly change some initial settings for a Default setup that works fast while tweaking the shapes and see feedback In VPR.
I actually just found out and tested it slightly yesterday, so I will look more in to it maybe tomorrow.
It will offer a way of rendering very high detailed structures, or objects..landscape, without the loss of detail as you move closer with camera, may be great for medical, science stuff as well as for certain landscape rock stuff, though they are not able to be present in open gl, which may pose a problem to design animated shots where things go over the area, since we can not have a opengl feedback, only vpr..thus it is essential for it to also render iterate fast in VPR.

donlimpio
01-23-2019, 02:55 AM
Still no true and practical subpixel displacement in Lightwave 2019? Sheesh... That's taking a bit too long in today's CGI landscape, I have to say...

stevecullum
01-23-2019, 06:44 AM
Still no true and practical subpixel displacement in Lightwave 2019? Sheesh... That's taking a bit too long in today's CGI landscape, I have to say...

Is it a big draw back not having 'true' sub pixel displacement though? Octane (I have a license) has it in Lightwave, but the amount of use cases where I've needed it has been limited at best. It's great for Landscapes, but then using an image to displace shape volumes is much quicker to render than procedurals, so might still be ok in that use case too.

donlimpio
01-23-2019, 07:15 AM
Hi Steve,

Everyone's use for certain features differs. As far as I'm concerned LightWave doesn't even need bones, since I never use it.

I do make a lot of product and interior renders however, and almost every shot has displacement mapping in some form. If it's not a shield or emblem on a glass or bottle, it's carvings in a piece of furniture, or convincing brick walls. So I can safely say I use it all the time, and it has effectively urged me to move from LW's native render engine and Kray to LW+Octane. Kray 3 seems to have subpixel displacement built into the core, although the feature is not yet officially supported, so I'm hoping I will be able to move back to LW+Kray, since I feel I have more control over my shading in Kray than in Octane.

But in short, for me it's an important feature.

donlimpio
01-23-2019, 07:21 AM
One more quick note: once you get used to using true surface displacement, you quickly start to wonder how you've been able to tolerate the fakeness of bump mapping for so long... It's a feature you don't miss if you don't use it - until you start to.

jwiede
01-23-2019, 04:45 PM
Is it a big draw back not having 'true' sub pixel displacement though? Octane (I have a license) has it in Lightwave, but the amount of use cases where I've needed it has been limited at best. It's great for Landscapes, but then using an image to displace shape volumes is much quicker to render than procedurals, so might still be ok in that use case too.

It depends a lot on what kinds of rendering you're doing. Anything that has complex, highly-detailed surfacing benefits a LOT from sub-pixel displacement: Landscapes, pictures involving ice/snow/sand where fine detailing is everywhere on the surface, but even certain types of product renders and visual surface studies need it when dealing with very rough, or very intricate surface details (particularly for animations where close-up fly-bys of the surface can occur, etc.).

If all you're doing is just "coarsely emulating" surface details (f.e. pre-vis and certain genres of arch-viz work) then it might not matter. In cases where verisimilitude/accuracy is important, even critical, just having a coarse approximation of surfacing details won't necessarily work, and you need accurate, highly-detailed surface replication (often incl. highly-accurate shadowing, etc.). Those are the kinds of cases where efficient subpixel displacement is needed.

stevecullum
01-23-2019, 05:10 PM
It depends a lot on what kinds of rendering you're doing. Anything that has complex, highly-detailed surfacing benefits a LOT from sub-pixel displacement: Landscapes, pictures involving ice/snow/sand where fine detailing is everywhere on the surface, but even certain types of product renders and visual surface studies need it when dealing with very rough, or very intricate surface details (particularly for animations where close-up fly-bys of the surface can occur, etc.).

If all you're doing is just "coarsely emulating" surface details (f.e. pre-vis and certain genres of arch-viz work) then it might not matter. In cases where verisimilitude/accuracy is important, even critical, just having a coarse approximation of surfacing details won't necessarily work, and you need accurate, highly-detailed surface replication (often incl. highly-accurate shadowing, etc.). Those are the kinds of cases where efficient subpixel displacement is needed.

Appreciated the use cases mentioned. Hopefully we will see native support at some point, but in the meantime Iím pleased there are other solutions for Lightwave, something that a little while back was no where to be seen.