PDA

View Full Version : Maxwell Render in Lightwave test.



Intuition
03-30-2005, 10:33 AM
http://members.roadfly.com/samuraichinchilla/scene2.jpg

Well, I was sucked in by the Maxwell gallery and broke down. Purchased the Alpha/Beta (whatever it is right now) of Maxwell Render and ran a test.

This Renderer is IMHO Awesome!

Does it make F-Prime less useful. NOPE. F-Prime still ownz in the fast visualization pipeline hands down.

What does Maxwell do? It handles light so well I almost feel like I'm looking at photographs instead of 3d.

It uses Polygon Normals as light emitters or you can use a global illumination or sky illumination (similar to skytracer).

You have to use tripled polys or subdivided nurbs objects right now and you can only use one image map per surface (I'm sure it will be fixed in full release in July).

Pretty nifty.

cresshead
03-30-2005, 10:48 AM
looks nice..how fast is the renderer though?

in comparison to lightwave, vray, final render, brazil or mental ray?

speed is a huge consideration in a renderer as "slow but nice" will mean still images only...how good is it for animation..does it have 3d mo blur or render artifacts when used for animated characters?

also does it only "shine" when using GI rendering..what about standard lights?
how does it look and what speed has it for those?

would be VEry interested to here your overal comments on the renderer as you become more familiar with it.

cheers

steve g

Intuition
03-30-2005, 11:51 AM
Speed is an issue with Maxwell.

This render is 20 minutes on a single 3.2 GHZ 2GB ram.

Not bad if you have a renderfarm like I do for animation needs.

But on a single machine it would be a huge stretch.

Right now you can't use Lightwave's standard lights.

You use objects with polygon (normals) to light the scenes (using luminosity values) OR you can use one of thier preset globals or skys.

It can't keep up with F-Prime as far as speed radiosity solutions but what it does do photoreal way ahead of the other render engines right now.

Even ugly low poly objects look real when rendered in MW.

The full version will have greater control over surfaces and interface.

NO shaders as of now. No Hypervoxels yet, but it is made by NEXT LIMIT which did realflow so I am sure thier solution to fluid/particle renders will be awesome.

I think it shines no matter what lighting you use, thats what they claim for fame.

Caustics are way better then anything I've seen, it even calculates caustic motion blurring.

Reflections/refractions look real as it gets. In thier forum there is a Lightwave test with a glass on bamboo and its real nice.

MW's main catch is that its rendertimes are very slow except on the very latest computers. Hopefully this will be one of the render engines that takes advantage of 64bit processing as its potential is great.

I'm not sure if Lightwave's native radiosity would make as nice an image but I'll do a test today. Also will do a F-Prime test as well and post here.

Captain Obvious
03-30-2005, 01:45 PM
MW's main catch is that its rendertimes are very slow except on the very latest computers. Hopefully this will be one of the render engines that takes advantage of 64bit processing as its potential is great.
Most renderers use floating points instead of integers (ie, fractions instead of just whole numbers). This gives them a higher dynamic range and numerous other advantages. It also means they'll see a zero speedup with 64-bit processing. All processors since the early 90s have been able to do 64-bit floats.

Of course, it can use more RAM if it's 64-bit, but it won't make it faster, as such.

Intuition
03-30-2005, 03:34 PM
Hmm... Good point Captain.

Here is a Lightwave Native Radiosity. 2 hours and 20 minutes.

Problem is I had reduce noise on so it removed the subtle hints.

Also, the surface settings are not matched very well, The specularity/glossiness was modified for results in Maxwell which ar enot stright comparisons.

What I am focusing on here is more light diffusion/scattering and less on surface.

Intuition
03-30-2005, 06:34 PM
F-Prime test 45 minutes. 400 Passes.

Not bad at all.

Surfaces need to be better matched again.

But still nice.

Ztreem
03-31-2005, 01:49 AM
I like the maxwell render best. Most because the light to the left is yellow in the reflection and not white. In LW and Fprime renders the light looks too bright(white) compared to the light hitting the skull. BTW if it renders at 20 min it's quite fast compared to Fprime and LW.

JML
03-31-2005, 07:41 AM
yeah, maxell 20 minute is not that bad for this quality.. I'm interested a little more now..
anybody heard from them if the full version will support shaders and hypervoxel and other LW stuff ?

Intuition
03-31-2005, 11:37 AM
The only draw back to MaxWave (Maxwell in Lightwave) is the level of surface control is limited in its beta/alpha stage.

Alot of us that took the leap are spending alot of time experimenting with surface settings. Lightwave's % values are not used in all surfaces. Glass surfaces, for instance, are taking values only from Maxwell. I believe that when the full version comes out (July 05) Lightwave % values will translate to Maxwave fully.

Just thought I'd let you know before you leap.

You get great results with thier presets but its a learning curve if you are a control freak like me.

Full version should support shaders/gradients but hypervoxels support is a mystery as of now.

Since Maxwell is a NextLimit product they probably don't want to compete with thier own Realflow products so they may leave it so you have to use realflow to integrate your particle soultions into Maxwave.

Again I don't know for sure, just guessing based on Forum chatter.

Lude
03-31-2005, 02:37 PM
20min for MW - Im very interested. I have stopped using FP and gone back to using Backdrop radiosity in lightwave.

I've been doing work for a paving company and FP had so much noise on my ground planes (paving) it was obscuring the details so it was back to LW as it produced a much smother less noisy result.

I look at the FP render here and see alot more noise than on the MW render and it took twice as long.

GraphXs
03-31-2005, 09:25 PM
Nice!

Q: The Maxwell render compared to LW and FP doesn’t seem to have any specularity in the image? If it did would it have a similar results on the wood and the wall. For the moment it seems the Maxwell render is missing a lot of features. Though it is the easiest on the eyes.

Tony

Intuition
04-01-2005, 09:32 AM
I ran some tests last night so that Maxwell would have specular in the wood like the F-Prime example.

Its looking really nice. Maxwave is going to be a powerhouse.

I did the pic at home instead of here at work but I'll post it Monday.

Maxwave is missing alot of features but its still in beta/alpha stage so I'm not worried yet as Herve' Otacon and myself are constantly sending our bugs and issues to the MW staff so they can work on it.

Captain Obvious
04-01-2005, 02:30 PM
How long does that scene take to render with LW's interpolated radiosity? I assumed you used Monte Carlo.

Ramon
04-03-2005, 02:15 PM
I ran some tests last night so that Maxwell would have specular in the wood like the F-Prime example.

Its looking really nice. Maxwave is going to be a powerhouse.

I did the pic at home instead of here at work but I'll post it Monday.

Maxwave is missing alot of features but its still in beta/alpha stage so I'm not worried yet as Herve' Otacon and myself are constantly sending our bugs and issues to the MW staff so they can work on it.

Cheers to that! On behalf of us all, thanks for letting them know all of the items missing in their LW support! :) Hopefull that will make for much tighter integration!
What I see as a really great benefit is that it's render time as stated in your comparison blows away LW and FP!!! And does it with an image quality that is certainly the best and also hardly any noise! I like the FP render but, it's way too noisy and with longer render times
I then wonder if the animations produced through radiosity in Maxwell will be flickerless, which has been (one) the problem for LWers with radiosity.

Ramon
04-03-2005, 02:26 PM
I don't know if most of you noticed this but, the only thing I don't like about the Maxwell render is the lack of diffused light on the chrome ball. Take a look at the chrome ball on both the LW and FP renders. The render it as I believe would be more true to life. Though as was stated, I don't know if the surface settings in Maxwell remained constant / comparable - more or less gloss / spec. It looks like the lightball is not effecting it at all in the Maxwell render - only the reflection.

Intuition: Another question I have (because I am very interested in Maxwell) is what were the radiosity settings that you used in LW? Monte Carlo? 4x16? Just wondering because the render times between Maxwell and LW are astonishing to say the least, especially when you factor in the quality comparisions. Did you say that Maxwell's main problem was rendering speed? Am I missing something here?
I'll tell you what I'm missing, Maxwell!!!

doimus
04-04-2005, 07:56 AM
How does Maxwell handle animations? Can it cache radiosity solution for walkthroughs, for example?

JML
04-04-2005, 10:15 AM
I don't know if most of you noticed this but, the only thing I don't like about the Maxwell render is the lack of diffused light on the chrome ball.

I think it's there but in the maxwell the ball intensity (light source) doesn't seem that strong..
in both LW and FP, the ball intensity seems to be 10 times stronger.

Ramon
04-04-2005, 11:14 AM
I think it's there but in the maxwell the ball intensity (light source) doesn't seem that strong..
in both LW and FP, the ball intensity seems to be 10 times stronger.

Yeah, That could be it but still, you'd think that even so, it should so up more than it does right? At least to me.

Ramon
04-04-2005, 11:17 AM
How does Maxwell handle animations? Can it cache radiosity solution for walkthroughs, for example?

Yeah, that was my question too. They have a test scene animated render (only thing in motion is the camera) at there website. If I remember correctly, it's of a windmill. It looks fantastic.

otacon
04-04-2005, 11:34 AM
I dont know about cache, but im pretty sure there will be baking options in the later versions.

Intuition
04-04-2005, 11:52 AM
I haven't tried any animation tests yet.

I believe that Maxwell is better at a bounced light look then F-Prime or Lightwave native so far.

Yet, Maxwell is still in beta/alpha and has a few bugs. I haven't completed any animation tests cause I am still playing around trying to get a mastery of surface settings.

I finally got settled on a glass look and am having good results.

I think that Maxwell, will be 2nd to none once the Lightwave/Maxwell surface settings are made to work together better. Right now I do alot of Surface test renders just to get going on an idea.

F-Prime made that process so easy its kind of hard to go back to waiting a few minutes just to get a general idea of what your going to get.

Maxwell's render window stars dark and then brightens up ans the light bounces are calculated. So sometimes you end up with an over exposed pic at the end when it looks just perfect at the beginning.

Again I must state that we are in beta/alpha testing stage tho, so there isn't room for complaints yet, only tests and feedback.

I love the render engine. I am hoping we can get a preview like f-prime for it so we can see quick results before we go in on a 20 minute render just to have it too dark or blown out white or too much/little DoF blur.

Animations are on the website. They look pretty good.

The future for Maxwell+Lightwave (Maxwave) looks very promising. Its just in the bumpy road of testing/refining right now.

:D

JML
04-04-2005, 09:28 PM
I just downloaded maxwell and did a few test..
I took one of my tank and applied a dome lighting,
sorry I know it's blury, I only had 10 minutes..

## Scene Information ##
2 meshes ( 162620 triangles )
## Render Information ##
*settings:
resolution: 720 x 486
*render time: 0 hours 10 minutes 3 seconds
normal quality mode
target sampling level: 25
sampling level reached: 14

(dual xeon3.2Ghz - 8 threads)

I will spend more time rendering this test tomorrow with maxwell and fprime1.5 hopefully

JML
04-04-2005, 09:56 PM
ouch...
the following render was done with Fprime 1.5,
88 passes , 8 bounce, montecarlo radisoty.
in 1 minute

(same machine, dual 3.2ghz)

I just bought maxwell... i'm feeling sick... :|

probably on architectural interior renderings, maxwell is more powerful.. (I hope so)

otacon
04-04-2005, 10:40 PM
You need to raise your fstop value in the camera dof properties on the maxwell one. That fprime one looks nice. :D

Para
04-05-2005, 02:15 AM
I just bought maxwell... i'm feeling sick... :|

probably on architectural interior renderings, maxwell is more powerful.. (I hope so)

Lots of light emitters and glass objects seems to be the thing for Maxwell. F Prime 1.5 seems to be quite usable now but since I don't own it I really can't say which one could be justified as "better". Besides you should try to match F Prime with Maxwell by at least adding DOF and seeing how much extra time that takes.

JML
04-05-2005, 06:53 AM
You need to raise your fstop value in the camera dof properties on the maxwell one. That fprime one looks nice. :D

doh !
that's right I forgot about all that... and also the tank is probably at the wrong scale..

I just started using maxwell but I think it's going to be perfect for interior renderings.. and other renderings that need to be very accurate...

Intuition
04-05-2005, 10:24 AM
Yah, You need to set the DoF other wise the image ends up blurry.

Just go to the x y or z views of the scene and set the distance. Then use like F-Stop 4.0 (depending on scene scale of course) and let it render for 20 minutes.

Should look stunning.

Don't feel down about Maxwell at all. YOu'll love it once you get into the swing of it.

It wasn't as fast and easy like F-Prime but what it produces when used properly is stunning.

Actually at 10 minutes Maxwell will surpass the F-Prime quality you posted if you set the DoF right.

Oh------also------

Maxwellis not trying to replace F-Prime in the fast visualization pipeline. Its really for photoreal renders. When you start getting the hang of it you will be blown away. I am mastering glass and its making my head spin its so cool.

JML
04-09-2005, 10:47 AM
here are 2 test just for fun,
the grainy one took 20 minutes to render (10bounces,sampling11)
the nice one took 8hours, (overnight, just to see what would happen)
(the one which took 8 hours probably would have been noise free a lot before that, I wanted to see the maximum.)

scene has 139 meshes ( 530126 triangles )
comp: dual xeon3.2 1gb
LW7.5c
resolution 1024*575

Marco Solorio
04-10-2005, 03:01 AM
the grainy one took 20 minutes to render (10bounces,sampling11)
the nice one took 8hours, (overnight, just to see what would happen)

Wow, looks great. Not having Maxwell over here yet, what are the maximum bounce and sampling levels?

Ramon
04-11-2005, 08:50 AM
JML , wait... the staircase scene... you didn't mention if it was FPrime or Maxwell. I gather it was FPrime right? That would be great to see how long and what quality would be created with Maxwell in that scene.

JML
04-11-2005, 08:57 AM
both were maxwell.
I Don't remember what was the settings, I think the nice one had 15 as sampling level, and maybe 10 bounces..

Ramon
04-11-2005, 09:42 AM
Oh, okay. cool. So it's like FPrime in the sense that you can stop the render whenever you like the quality it has produced? You see, that's why I was confused and thought that it was FPrime.
Well then in that case, I wonder at what speed vs. quality FPrime renders that same scene in.
Thanks JML.

JML
04-11-2005, 11:07 AM
I think we have to wait until maxwell really come out...

the thing I don't like right now is that you can't take one of your scene and render it with maxwell.. because each surface has to be prepare with maxwell shader in order to render nicely...
it may be fix in future release but right now, the workflow is slow.. and so is the render..
it looks beautiful but it's only for specefic projects I think
I like in Fprime that you can render the LW scene with LW native render or Fprime and it would look the same.. no need to alter your objects/textures in Fprime..

Like I said, maxwell might be better in future release, you just have to wait I think to really judge it..

wacom
04-11-2005, 01:03 PM
-sorry...delete...

wacom
04-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Intuition could you please make your test scene avalible for me to play with?

Here is a scene I set up with some of the basics going on.

Fprime 7min on a Dell 8200 1.7Ghz. I can get it down to around five minutes with very little quality change as well (going from LQ-.3 to LQ.1).

Nigel Baker
04-11-2005, 02:23 PM
Hello there all,

I was wondering about how LW and Maxwell worked together.
I find it strange that it cannot just accept a LW scene file.
I could not see anything on the maxwell site about this.
Is there a manual available to read the set up you have to do?
Whats the point in surfacing it in LW and then again in Maxwell.

I understand the point but the double work load seems crazy.
Maybe I am not fully understanding something here?

Intuition
04-11-2005, 02:52 PM
Hey Wacom,
Yeh, I'll try to zip it up for you. Should have it here in about an hour.

Been busy, haven't been able to mess with MW for a bit :(

More time in May to use it effectively :D

Marco Solorio
04-11-2005, 04:32 PM
I understand the point but the double work load seems crazy.

I don't know if double work load is a good way to look at it. True, you need to set up your surfacing in Maxwell instead of LW's internal methods, but if you plan ahead, you simply do the surfacing in Maxwell instead of LW. Whether one or the other, you still need to surface. I think it really just boils down to planning ahead and knowing which renderer you want to use... and then sticking with it! ;)

I'm totally sold on Maxwell... I'm buying it today. Once I use it am 100% sure I'm diggin' it, I'll buy a second seat.

Intuition
04-11-2005, 05:04 PM
Hey Wacom,
The file size limit is 800k so I left the high res skull and a large texture map out of the scene file. I see you have the skull already and just use whatever metal texture you have for the backg.

Give it a go.

JML
04-11-2005, 05:16 PM
if you plan ahead, you simply do the surfacing in Maxwell instead of LW.
but then if your deadline changes or you find out it takes way to long to finish in time,
you are screwed... (no time to change all the texture to render fine in LW or Fprime)

it all depends on the project I think (and the size of your rendertower), workwise , it might be fine for products designs or small interiors.
I bought it for myself, but there is no way I would recommend it to my company right now..
they are screaming when a 720*486 render takes more than 5 minutes :)
again it depends of your company

Intuition
04-11-2005, 06:41 PM
Messing around with settings. Glossed up the wood. 20 minute render.

Ramon
04-11-2005, 10:23 PM
they are screaming when a 720*486 render takes more than 5 minutes :)
again it depends of your company
That's right around my render threshold tolerance per frame also.

Marco Solorio
04-12-2005, 12:43 AM
but then if your deadline changes or you find out it takes way to long to finish in time, you are screwed... (no time to change all the texture to render fine in LW or Fprime)

Well there's no question about that! ;) That's kind of why I was mentioning that if you decide on it, you need to stick with it, or else there will be gnashing of teeth!


it all depends on the project I think (and the size of your rendertower), workwise , it might be fine for products designs or small interiors.

Yup. Interior/exterior previz is what we'll be using it for... still images at that.


I bought it for myself, but there is no way I would recommend it to my company right now..
they are screaming when a 720*486 render takes more than 5 minutes :)
again it depends of your company

Hear hear. There's no way I'd use it for animation just yet. Not until good looking renders are at 10 minutes max (yeah right) and/or ResPower incorporates it into their system, which I have to believe they will once MW is version 1.0.0., but just a hopefull guess.

BTW, I bought our first seat of MW today at about 1:30 PST (it's now 11:30 pm) and haven't heard from them! I'm dying to play with it!!! How long do these guys take??? GRRRRRR!!!

Marco Solorio
04-12-2005, 12:46 AM
Messing around with settings.

HA! I love the placement of the reflective spheres!!! :D

Definitely a mouth full! Or keeping your eye on it! One of the two! :p

Para
04-12-2005, 06:51 AM
Hello there all,

I was wondering about how LW and Maxwell worked together.
I find it strange that it cannot just accept a LW scene file.
I could not see anything on the maxwell site about this.
Is there a manual available to read the set up you have to do?
Whats the point in surfacing it in LW and then again in Maxwell.

I understand the point but the double work load seems crazy.
Maybe I am not fully understanding something here?

Maxwell doesn't use Lightwave lights at all. Instead Maxwell has a light emitter material so instead of placing a point light inside the modeled light bulb you apply the emitter material to the bulb (or model the string inside the lamp and apply the material to that).

...and of course there's a manual available :)

Nigel Baker
04-12-2005, 07:04 AM
Hello there Para,

Please tell me, is the manual available as a download?
Or do you have to purchase it first?

Thanks in advance.

Intuition
04-12-2005, 09:35 AM
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=634

Here is Tom's unofficial reference.

Nigel Baker
04-12-2005, 09:46 AM
Thanks very kindly Intuition,

Will look at this very closely. Appreciate the time.

movie3d
04-12-2005, 11:37 AM
hey anyone...

i am so confused anyone want fprime and maxwell render make more faster and less time.. but which one is the best Plug in? more easiler more faster render mins..????
pls more feedback i wanna to know this..

thank
movie3d

monovich
04-12-2005, 12:17 PM
hey anyone...

i am so confused anyone want fprime and maxwell render make more faster and less time.. but which one is the best Plug in? more easiler more faster render mins..????
pls more feedback i wanna to know this..

thank
movie3d

Have you read the whole thread? There is no definitive answer to your questions right now, and probably never will be. It's all subjective.

Intuition
04-12-2005, 01:03 PM
Let me sum it up though.

Maxwell Render looks really really good in the bounced light (radiosity/caustics) department.

But it is no replacement for F-Prime. They both do really nice things and yet, do not cancel each other out.

F-Prime is the ULTIMATE pipleine for scene visualization hands down. I don't care if we are talking Lightwave, other plug ins, or even Maya and 3DSMAX.

F-Prime makes setting up a scene pure pleasure now (for me anyways).

It also makes a great case for Radiosity in Animation. I have done tons of HD stuff in it already.

Maxwell on the other hand takes more traditional time to set up scenes, reminds me of my LW 5.0 days. Tweak, f9, tweak, f9, etc. Yet, what it produces in the end is worth the setup time. I haven't used it in an actual paying gig yet, but I am putting emphasis on YET.

In my opinion Maxwell, or anything for that matter, will not make F-Prime obsolete, but at the same time people use diffent stuff depending on thier needs.

Maxwell is for photoreal lighting.

My Intuition, no pun intended, tells me that Lightwave will soon be catching up to F-Prime's and Maxwell's render capabilities in the near future.

movie3d
04-13-2005, 11:19 AM
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh now i got it very clear thank you soooo much...

now i got what do you mean what is 2 differrent between maxwell and fprime

great great

thank you
movie3d :) :) :) ;) ;)

wacom
04-15-2005, 10:21 AM
Intuition-
I guess I wasn't clear when I asked for the files...I really wanted you LW files for the scene...or the ones you were using for Fprime. Thanks for uploading them though. I went ahead a played around with the scene and got something sort of close (but there was no background texture in your file for the sides of the box). I took out the distant ligtht (probably a bad idea) to make sure I was using those two sources instead which might explain why it was a little darker...)

The first image is at two passes in Fprime, LQ .1, MC 4 bounces etc. and it took 2 min 40 sec on my 1.7Ghz Dell.

The Next two are at 3 passes with the first having a slight gamma adjustment in post and another with a major gamma adjustment. FPrimes noise reduction seems to work best when it "knows" how bright the scene is. Anyway these too just over three minutes.

If you have you're LW scene files for this one I'd love to look over them.

Gideon

PS- I'm using the LW 7 high detail skull I hope that's the right one...

wacom
04-15-2005, 10:42 AM
Here is one, at two passes with slight gamma adjustment, that has the distant light added back into it.