PDA

View Full Version : Will LightWave [8] have renderer improvements...



harhar
06-10-2003, 04:09 PM
XSI has mental ray
Maya integrated mental ray into its latest version
3dsmax is going to integrate Mentalray into its next version

Lightwave 8 doesn't seem to have any major renderer improvement.

hrgiger
06-10-2003, 06:24 PM
Well, then you must know something that nobody else in the world knows.

Newtek has not stated that improvements to the renderer are not a part of 8. They DID state that there would be improvements to modeler and character animation tools, but Chuck has also stated that improvements are certainly not limited to those mentioned.

mrunion
06-10-2003, 07:19 PM
Althought this thread is one person's opinion that may or may not have followers, maybe harhar would be interested in this:

http://www.luxology.net/article/012303_Zoic/page3.aspx

Read the first question and answer on the page.

Nicodemus
06-10-2003, 07:21 PM
Also.....I am not some rabid Lightwave fanatic blind to everything else, but, considering that Lightwaves renderer is considered to be one of the best out there and is compared favorably with mentalray as well as all the other top rendering engines out there I fail to see the problem.

Of course be able to use Mentalray would be nice since having more option is never a bad thing. But lets not abandon all hope....if anything it tends to bode well that the others have found the need to add an additional renderer. Many times on the competitions forus I have seen users talking about how they wish they had a renderer like Lightwaves.

~L~

harhar
06-10-2003, 08:40 PM
Lightwave is a good renderer, but mentalray is better in just about everyway.

You don't really need programmers to write mentalray shaders as the translator takes care of that.

Titus
06-10-2003, 09:17 PM
Well then, following your logic NewTek should integrate mental ray with Lightwave to get even.

Please name the studios with a renderfarm of less than 50 processors using mental ray in a daily basis.

Lamont
06-10-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by harhar
Lightwave 8 doesn't seem to have any major renderer improvement. HarHar get's the Crown for being able to see the future.
http://www.nobility.co.uk/images/products/crown.jpg
Or maybe HarHar has special hardware so he can drop all this knowlege on us?
http://www.lfpshop.com/images/crystal-ball-med.jpg
Or maybe he is using a plug-in we don't know about:
http://www.naspe-patients.org/patients/substances/images/cocaine.jpg

Wade
06-10-2003, 10:09 PM
Lamont,


:D


Wade.

Mylenium
06-10-2003, 11:32 PM
Well,

Harhar seems to think MRay is the holy grail of rendering engines. Personally I think not. Yes, the quality is excellent once you know how to tweak settings but it takes a while to get there. Also Harhar refers to translation of shaders - that is actually perhaps the one largest problem with MRay. You never know how things come out for certain combinations of MRay's function and both XSI and Maya still have problems there. I think LW's renderer ain't too bad and if they can manage to make it more flexible without losing quality it will be top notch for a few more years. This is a statement that you can even hear from Avid/ Softimage people themselves and if that doesn't count for something then I honestly don't know what's harhar's point.

Mylenium

Beamtracer
06-11-2003, 05:09 AM
Lightwave's renderer is top class. We don't need Mental Ray. There may be some other features that are needed in Lightwave 8, but the renderer ain't one of them, as it's already so good.

colkai
06-11-2003, 05:59 AM
WOW
so like harhar - when did you get LW8? What's it like, what are the new features?

What's that - you ddon't have it :confused: so you just felt that it was time for more flame-bait then huh?

Sigh - was a time, these boards held some useful threads :(

Lamont
06-11-2003, 06:30 AM
As we all know, LW usually is the first to do something when a new full version is released. So sit back.

riki
06-11-2003, 07:20 AM
mmmmmmmm nothing wrong with a bit of competition is there?

Lamont
06-11-2003, 07:28 AM
One thing that I would like is a better network rendering agent/manager.

Competition is great. That's why Maya/Softimage is cheaper.

Elmar Moelzer
06-11-2003, 08:11 AM
I want to add a few things to that:
1. I think LWs renderer is pertty good overall and it is ery easy to use.
2. AFAIK MAYA and XSi come with only 2 CPU- licenses of Mental Ray. For every CPU more than those two, that you want to add to your network (for network- rendering) you will have to buy an additional license for $$$.
3. Yes I think that LWs renderer should improve especially in terms of speed. A lot of slowdowns could be easily fixed though as they are caused by bugs, bad memory- management and sluggish integration of features.
I think that having that fixed could make LW- renders twice as fast on average (not in all aspects though, but on average).
4. I think NT should open LWs renderer more to the SDK so 3rd parties can add new features more easily. This would help improve the quality of LWs rendering. People could buy additional features like different AA/Motionblur- methods (if they think they really need them), or different texture- filtering-methods (has been critizised recently by a few people).
5. Yes Network- rendering needs to be improved a lot.
6. For those of you that prefer using a script- language over C/C++ for shaderprograming: You should have a look at Lscript which allows to do some shaderprogramming too(I am not that much into Lscript, so I cant really tell how good this works).
7. LW needs a better preview- render- type than Quickshade. Something between Quickshade and Realistic, with OpenGL- accelleration preferably.
8. Concerning Micropolygons, I would like to add that I would already be happy if LWs bump- maps woul distort the shadows cast on them. Would make renderings, especially with sharp shadows appear much more realistic and it is not that hard to do.
CU
Elmar

Titus
06-11-2003, 08:44 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CIM
LW's renderer actually needs a huge overhaul.

I think this is too much...

I been living from writing RenderMan shaders for some years and now I work almost 100% with LW. I really don't need RenderMan or Mental Ray. But if I was using Maya's renderer that is another story...

LW would need to become a micropolygon renderer

It's a good idea. Real displacement is a feature I love from RenderMan renderers. The posibility to extrude a castle directly from a single polygon is amazing.

The other thing I miss is fully programable shaders with a simple shading language, but I don't find it an issue of life and death.

cresshead
06-11-2003, 09:06 AM
as for lightwave having the worst renderer....

well discreet have yet to confirm that mental ray will be bundeled with max but even if it is they need to make a much better connection than they did for the pay for version they currently have as soooooooooooooooooo many things can't be used with max...like max's proc textures for one....

as for lightwave's renderer currently...it only comes second to pr renderman...above mental ray as i read many items where mental ray simply broke on big scenes that they have to revert to the built in renderer in softimage...not sure if that's a thing of the past but to totally rely on mental ray is well..er.."mental".

lightwave or newtek should actually sell the renderer as a separate render app for max, soft, maya...the'd do well.

the grass is always greener...but not so well rendered!

steve g

harhar
06-11-2003, 04:26 PM
Max 6 beta already has mental ray integrated.

mmm, I don't think Lightwave handles large scenes any better than mental ray. Nor is it any more stable than MentalRay. And I don't think the people at ILM are mental.

cresshead
06-11-2003, 04:45 PM
that's probably 'cos ILM use pr renderman most of the time!

AND mental ray is 2 cpu's....extras cost you...errr.... extra!

bargin?

steve g

hrgiger
06-11-2003, 06:50 PM
I think the mental ray is 4 licenses and then you pay for any after that.

I remember looking not too long ago and Renderman was $8,000. I'm fine with LW's renderer. Really.

cgolchert
06-11-2003, 08:53 PM
Something I have noticed about the per node price is that we don't have a whole lot of render farm people or studio purchasing people commenting on this.

Sure LW comes with the unlimited node free, but that argument doesn't hold as much water when you (the reader) use the "That $800 plugin is cheap and the first job will pay for itself" line. So will that extra render node. I agree, I wouldn't want to have to pay thousands for an extra render node. But then if I had major studio funding I wouldn't care. I am an individual like most of you on here, but if we cater JUST to the individuals then LW becomes a hobbiest application.

OK, ILM doesn't use mental Ray, Renderman still isn't Lightwave. I don't see this thread as saying that Lightwave should license Mental Ray but more as the rest of the industry seem to think MR is the way to go. Everyone here wants LW to take that lead again.

Even with the "negative" thread title I didn't go hide in my room under the bed or complain that the thread should be deleted. I can understand that LW needs imporvements. Heck, NewTek knows that. If the original poster wanted LW to fade away I'm sure they wouldn't have posted this here.

harhar
06-11-2003, 08:59 PM
ILM uses mentalray on all shots that require raytracing.

Titus
06-11-2003, 10:56 PM
This is an excelent discusion about how ILM use both PRman and MR, just look what user gga posted:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33132&perpage=15&pagenumber=4

Exper
06-12-2003, 04:27 AM
LWs renderer should improve especially in terms of speed.
LWs renderer should be more configurable like many other ones (maybe is it a prute-force-renderer??? in this case... :o )

NT should open LWs renderer more to the SDK
This is one of the most important priority, in my own opinion: Worley and every other developers shuold create great stuffs!!! ;)

using a script- language over C/C++ for shaderprograming
LScript is not really useful in this filed: terrifying slow.

Bye.

colkai
06-12-2003, 05:39 AM
cgolchert said:

but if we cater JUST to the individuals then LW becomes a hobbiest application.

Of course, the inverse also holds true, if you start having to license the renderer, which would put it out of my range in a nanosecond. :( Good for folks who can write it off under their business, not good for the single user.

Not to say I wouldn't love to see some improvments in the renderer, speed, mo-blur, microsurfaces (or whatever they're called ;))
Given that many studios apparently use LW for rendering, I would of thought the desire to make it better is very much on Newteks mind, as to if they can match PRMan / Mentalray, I guess only they truly know.

At the end of the day, if LW goes the way of licensing the renderer, I won't (can't afford to ) go with it. Be assured however, Lightwave would remain on my disk and in use, it would just get older and more out of date, (a bit like me :p ).

pixelmonk
06-12-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by harhar
XSI has mental ray
Maya integrated mental ray into its latest version
3dsmax is going to integrate Mentalray into its next version

Lightwave 8 doesn't seem to have any major renderer improvement.

What are you smoking? Discreet isn't integrating MR into the next version of Max. Maya has further integrated MR into its base, but it's far from fully integrated. XSI has the best implimentation of MR to date. Yes.. LW8 doesn't "SEEM" to have jack as they haven't released a final run down on enhancements. You couldn't possibly wait another month to see what Newtek was going to announce before you sent out this waste of space?

pixelmonk
06-12-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by harhar
Lightwave is a good renderer, but mentalray is better in just about everyway.

You don't really need programmers to write mentalray shaders as the translator takes care of that.

How is it better in just about every way? Have you used it in a production enviroment? Or will you just read us a laundry list of things it can go (cut and pasted from Mental Image's website).

BTW, translators aren't 100% fool-proof. If you believe that going into production, you'll be selling off all of your equipment on Ebay in no time.

pixelmonk
06-12-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by harhar
ILM uses mentalray on all shots that require raytracing.

PRMan does raytracing... next.

mattclary
06-12-2003, 09:41 AM
hehehehehehe.... :cool:

harhar
06-12-2003, 10:15 AM
PRMan does raytracing... next.

have you tried prman's raytracing, it's the slowest in the industry.



What are you smoking? Discreet isn't integrating MR into the next version of Max.

geee, then why am I seeing this max 6 beta with mray3.2 integrated.



BTW, translators aren't 100% fool-proof. If you believe that going into production, you'll be selling off all of your equipment on Ebay in no time.

have you tried maya's translator? It's 90% fool prooof.

Exper
06-12-2003, 11:45 AM
Come on NT and give us a GI revamp... so no-one will ask for things like these!!!

Hehehhehehe!!! ;)

Bye.

cresshead
06-12-2003, 12:38 PM
yeh, come on newtek...shelve all development on the lightwave renderer..actually..remove it please!..it has a too unfashionable "photoreal" look and the production quality cel shaders..bin them as well....who uses them anyway except studios making that fasionable cel shade look in japan etc...

my solution?

go n buy either the scanline from max for that plastic look which is so hard to get with lightwave or just make it that you have to use mental ray and limit the use to a single cpu..much better than what we have now...

and finally...please do something about you gallery...it just well, you know looks far too good for the lightwave at it's current price point....no one's going to believe it is do able at such a cheap price.

i'd much sooner not have a renderer..at least no one can say it lacked certain features...or was too good to be free..

finally...take good look at brazil as well and charge is at least the same price for the renderer as lightwave itself...that way we can look like a hi end app just like max does beacause our pricepoint
is too low to be judged a hi end app currently.

hey, and talking about lightwave 8 in general..
don't lead the way in lightwave..do what others do, copy others
say like discreet did with max and how maya works..much simpler eh?...n cheaper too!

steve g

mufty
06-12-2003, 12:48 PM
I think it says something when a major 3D application has one of the best rendering engines for years, and the only way rival apps can rival/exceed it is by opting to implement an out-sourced rendering engine.

harhar
06-12-2003, 01:04 PM
what do you mean out-sourced?

mufty
06-12-2003, 01:29 PM
Maybe it wasn't the right word to use, but I meant Mental Ray isn't developed by SoftImage, Discreet, or Alias. They use a product developed by a third party.

j3st3r
06-12-2003, 01:56 PM
Whohaaa...

I`m a little upset, when I read that LW is how perfect, it has the best renderer around, etc...

What those zealots don`t see really, why max and maya implements MR into themselves...Some kind of standardization...MR is a wide range known renderer, very famous, and more over the shading is very nicely controllable...
That`s the same for PRMan. They became popular because of their open structure. Many shading task can be solved with pure shading network.

XSI is fully built around MR. Maya has implemented MR quite well, although it`s almost 10 times slower than xsi...

Summa Summarum. LW needs to open it`s structure. The user must have more option (although it has a LOT) to control the renderer. LW had always beautiful renderings, but nowadays the open structure became more importtant than before.

cresshead
06-12-2003, 02:14 PM
well i'm not saying it's perfect....
but it IS one of the big things in lightwave that truly stands out as pretty stunning...maybe not a pr renderman killer..but the output is very "film friendly" and quite capable of photoreal output..which many a renderer still strive for today.

i've only seen a couple of photoreal brizil renderers and mental ray has a good seletion indeed but literally "at a price"..something that many overlook when talking about renderers...such as mental,brazil or prman.

and quite a few people use maya and render in lightwave..not just hobbyists but full on studios that do stunning work for film and hi profile adverts...i really hope newtek don't go and make the next advances in the renderer only available in a separate
pay for module....or stop deveolpment in favour of adding a single cpu node of mental ray....don't bandwagon it like maya or potentially max 6...cut you own path.

steve g

j3st3r
06-12-2003, 02:34 PM
Look. LW current best weapon is it`s price/performance ratio. It would be a suicide, if LW would change the licensing. Look. LW currently costs 1600USD ca. Maya (complete) costs 2000USD, Max costs 3500USD (AFAIK). I hope that LW will change but keep it`s userfriendly pricing and licensing...

Mylenium
06-12-2003, 11:47 PM
Well,

MRay and PRman may be open, but this really comes with a veavy price tag. It's ok as long as you can live with the standard features but if you really need e.g. a standalone MRay for large networks or need to expand some core functions for your own purposes you still have to pay about 30 000 bucks - not very reasonable pricing if you ask me. It's not as critical with PRman (mainly because documentation is available openly, it's been around longer and there are many free derivatives) but even there the cost can become exorbitant in relation to the potential benefits especially for smaller companies. You have to keep in mind that you only pay the renderer and still need to buy a lot of other software for animation, compositing etc. Depending on the level of integration you also still have to deal with poor scene translation or other limitations which may pose another problem especially with time critical productions. Honestly I very much prefer a good renderer integrated into the software and if MRay didn't come with may I'd not even be using it. BTW, doing MRay custom shaders (volume, light, camera, SSS etc.) is still a very tricky thing 'cos you have to do everything manually and the mathematical side of this whole shebang is beyond most people's daily requirements. LW's renderer is good enough for most everyday tasks and if they can manage to re-write the old code, fix some minor annoyances (that thing with air surfaces for instance), make it open, implement more features, speed it up and still maintain its beauty then we will all once more have reason to rejoice (and possibly laugh at a poorly implemented MAX MRay)

Mylenium

sailor
06-13-2003, 01:08 AM
"but even there the cost can become exorbitant in relation to the potential benefits especially for smaller companies"

exactly and this is what is all about...IS NT going to make LW renderer be used in large productions or not? (i consider large productions things like Final Fantasy or movie Special FX (Star Wars etc..) because u are saying that MR or PRenderman are expensive...true but they are used in large productions for their qualities...so at the moment u have 2 possibilities...if u are a freelancer or hobbyst u can use either LW or MR (considering that for a freelancer having MR in Maya should do the trick) ...usin LW u will have great images....using MR u will have great images plus the fact that u are learning a tool used in large productions so if one day u want to join one of this projects u will be trained, plus again the fact that if the Max goin MR is true u will have most of the top notch 3D app sharing a renderer...wich allows u to switch from a XSI based pipeline to a Maya or Max (in terms of skills)...this is very ineteresting for someone not working at home but freelancing .
the only market i can see that can stick with LW is the one of the small companies because they need several rendering nodes so it costs $$$ vs the budgets they have for their productions...i understand pretty well that for those LW is still a great deal...

so as a conclusion LW is not the best renderer BUT the best renderer for $$$ what is not at all the same...this statement is important if u are in charge of buying licenses in a small company....as an artist or someone looking to be hireable this is not AT ALL an argument.

:)

colkai
06-13-2003, 05:41 AM
so as a conclusion LW is not the best renderer BUT the best renderer for $$$ what is not at all the same...this statement is important if u are in charge of buying licenses in a small company....as an artist or someone looking to be hireable this is not AT ALL an argument.

Sailor,
Well Said!!
That is the crunch and as you say, I think NT are aware of it.
For business that want flash-bang-wallop, they have the option of other packages & renders, for the hobbyist, I feel personally, there is only one choice.

Bang-for-buck, gimme LW any day! :D

pixelmonk
06-13-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by harhar
have you tried prman's raytracing, it's the slowest in the industry.




geee, then why am I seeing this max 6 beta with mray3.2 integrated.




have you tried maya's translator? It's 90% fool prooof.

PRman isn't the slowest in the industry. You need to try to contain your embelishments so they don't make you seem less than knowledgeable, such as ILM switching over to MR for "ALL" raytracing.

Max 6 beta.... so you're breaking your NDA? Do you even have an NDA? Know what one is? Are you one of those "Ahoy Matey's" who received a cracked copy? Discreet would sure love to hear about it.

I've used Maya/MR, yes. It's not 90% full-proof. Also, not all of Maya's features can be rendered in MR, as you should know. They've tried work around and even suggest doing some things in post. XSI still has the best integration of MR and will probably always be that way. They had a head start. Max has the worst connections to MR and will be behind Maya if and when they release a new version.

next...

Mike_RB
06-13-2003, 08:58 AM
At least some of the elements from r2d2 flying around in the underground construction area in Clones was rendered in LW.

Exper
06-13-2003, 09:11 AM
Only for knowledge:
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/product/projects_list.html

Bye.

harhar
06-13-2003, 10:14 AM
PRman isn't the slowest in the industry. You need to try to contain your embelishments so they don't make you seem less than knowledgeable, such as ILM switching over to MR for "ALL" raytracing.

you seem to be an ignorant zealot. Prman only added raytracing in version 11. It's still slow and crappy, cannot even compare to the speed and quality of MR.


Max 6 beta.... so you're breaking your NDA? Do you even have an NDA? Know what one is? Are you one of those "Ahoy Matey's" who received a cracked copy? Discreet would sure love to hear about it.

What the hell's an NDA?


I've used Maya/MR, yes. It's not 90% full-proof. Also, not all of Maya's features can be rendered in MR, as you should know. They've tried work around and even suggest doing some things in post.

voxels cannot be rendered. And fur and paintFX cannot be rendered. Everything else works perfectly. If you think translator isn't reliable, how do you think major studios use prman, as it is a standalone renderer.


Max has the worst connections to MR and will be behind Maya if and when they release a new version.

do you think they're just going to to use the old connection?

Exper
06-13-2003, 11:20 AM
Please can someone change the Thread Title to:
Will MR or Prman be the best renderer?

:mad:

Bye.

anieves
06-13-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by harhar
What the hell's an NDA?

nuff said.

mattclary
06-13-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by anieves
nuff said.


LOL!!!

robewil
06-13-2003, 11:57 AM
NDA = No Doofus' Allowed :D

Lamont
06-13-2003, 11:59 AM
Oh Harhar... I like posting pictures.

mattclary
06-13-2003, 12:09 PM
OK, starting to enjoy this thread now! Best laughs I've had all day!! :D

anieves
06-13-2003, 12:17 PM
LOL! agreed matt!

Elmar Moelzer
06-13-2003, 02:30 PM
Hehe!
Interesting how people get to Betas nowadays ;)
I dont know about Discreets Beta- policy, but from my experience it is pretty common to sign an NDA before getting to see any beta- software.
MR is good, but LWs renderer aint bad neither and LW is used for movies pretty often.
Dont make the mistake to think that budget doesnt matter for movie- projects. Budget always matters....
CU
Elmar

harhar
06-13-2003, 04:10 PM
ahhh, i never said I have the max 6 beta, i just seen many people talking about it in max forums and posting screenshots.

Lamont
06-13-2003, 04:15 PM
So your information is 3rd/4th hand?

I'm sorry, I posted the wrong picture then:
http://members.attcanada.ca/~shinichi/exlax.jpg
Because on this subject you're full of it and you need help.

harhar
06-13-2003, 04:33 PM
heh, my information is much more reliable than say... the notion that lightwave 8 will have renderer improvements.

Lamont
06-13-2003, 04:37 PM
Hehehehe!! ^_^!!

Lamont
06-13-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by harhar
heh, my information is much more reliable...I say you should just out with whatever info you have, because I am always intrested...

Besides, so far you haven't supported your claims of even seeing this "beta". I could care less about who uses what software... that's always tripe in a debate to me.

Show me, and shut these guys up.

anieves
06-13-2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by harhar
ahhh, i never said I have the max 6 beta, i just seen many people talking about it in max forums and posting screenshots.

didn't you say this?

Originally posted by harhar

geee, then why am I seeing this max 6 beta with mray3.2 integrated.

you either have an illegal max 6 copy or you are very naive by beliveing everything you see on forums.

btw here is a lw8 screenshot!
lw8 (http://www.3dpoder.com/foro3dpoder/upload/lightwave_vx_interface2.jpg)

harhar
06-13-2003, 08:53 PM
I said I seen screenshots of max 6 with mentalray3.2 integrated. And my source is reliable. At least I don't lie like you did.

vrolfak
06-13-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Nicodemus
Also.....I am not some rabid Lightwave fanatic blind to everything else, but, considering that Lightwaves renderer is considered to be one of the best out there and is compared favorably with mentalray as well as all the other top rendering engines out there I fail to see the problem.

Of course be able to use Mentalray would be nice since having more option is never a bad thing. But lets not abandon all hope....if anything it tends to bode well that the others have found the need to add an additional renderer. Many times on the competitions forus I have seen users talking about how they wish they had a renderer like Lightwaves.~L~

i think that improvements should be done to whats needed most, so having character animation improvements and all the others, is great, and if they do improve the renderer then thats great but if they donīt it wont bother me, cause iīm very happy with it. and also cause i donīt know the other renderers so i donīt know what iīm missing (if iīm missing anything)

Lamont
06-13-2003, 09:25 PM
I think the forum topic Will LightWave [8] have renderer improvements... is redundant. We ALL know Lightwave 8 will have render improvements.

Every full new version of Lightwave has had drastic render improvements.

Chuck
06-14-2003, 01:42 PM
It seemed like a better title than "Soon LightWave will have the worst renderer.."

;)

Lamont
06-14-2003, 01:45 PM
Or:

Soon Lightwave will have the worst renderer... compared to Lightwave 8.

cavalos
06-14-2003, 05:09 PM
Is a great relief to have you here Chuck! :)

cresshead
06-14-2003, 06:21 PM
yeh, nice to see you here chuck...must have finished all that birthday cake off eh?!!

looking forward to all the goodies newtek is cooking up for lw8

steve g

cresshead
06-15-2003, 07:33 AM
from "cim"

""""It's funny how LW used to soar above these programs in rendering power, yet now it looks like LW will be known for having a weak renderer, while they are for having strong ones. """"

...in YOUR opinion of course...
if your just going on output..ie finished renders...it's pretty difficult to get better than photoreal...and lightwave does photoreal now...where as some of the others say they can do photoreal but in use eaither fall quite short in results or they need to be thrown thru so many hoops that te result is hard to achieve or needs huge amounts of ram or programming...not very artist friendly.

if your on about workflow...there can be room for extras and improvment with ALL renderers.

if your on about feature lists...lightwave was there first on most new technology..and brought them into production use not a feature that would take 2 days to gat a mediocre render like some "HI SPEC" renderers..ie what's on the side of the box.
a spec sheet "feature"is no use if it's too difficult to use in a realworld production enviroment.

steve g

Mylenium
06-15-2003, 09:07 AM
Good point, cresshead. Anyway, a little competion is not too bad for the market, is it? That's an argument that I'm missing somewhat here. Think of a world where everybody is dependent on the people from Pixar or Mental Images. Yes, they dedicate their companies largely to develepment of their rendering tools, but even they have not always the rosetta stone of techology.

Mylenium

hrgiger
06-15-2003, 09:54 AM
Yeah, says a lot for the other apps that they have had to rely on Mental ray to have a quality renderer. Way to go XSI, Max, Maya, etc...

Emmanuel
06-15-2003, 10:15 AM
Okay, congrats to Mental Images, they seem to do a great job marketing their render engine (I would really have thought that discreet bundles Max with Brazil, as I think that Brazil is a really cool thing).
If Max would integrate MR, then any major package except for C4D and LW would have the option to use MR, so probably NT will go that route, too, unless its financially not viable, caue I am sure that MR ask for quite some cash (...providing the de fact standard render engine).

I for one still have no idea why MR should be better.
People showed some texture mapped billiard ball to give an example of MRs texture filtering quality, but apart from that, what is soooo cool about it ? Who can show me a picture that looks so awesome better than the best stuff that comes out of LW ?
Go and check the splutterfish gallery:

http://www.splutterfish.com/sf/gallery_view.php?photo_id=263&screen=0&cat_id=2&action=images


Does MR beat this ? Or is it the artist :/ ?

harhar
06-15-2003, 10:30 AM
rendered with MR (http://www.dinosaur.org/dinos/wwdallosaur.jpg)

harhar
06-15-2003, 10:32 AM
have the watched Discovery Channel's walking with dinasours? It used MR to render everything.

Lamont
06-15-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by CIM
Well, lets all hope LW 8 has major renderer improvements; if not, then LW will indeed have the worst renderer out of XSI, Maya, and Max (LW's real competition).Worst renderer out of the box, or worst renderer after add-ons?

Elmar Moelzer
06-15-2003, 11:54 AM
Hey Harhar!
I have seen it and it was great. Nevertheless I was not that impressed with the renderquality, to be honest. I think that renderquality could easily be matched if not exceeded by LW.
I dont know what it is but MR (and also PRman) has some weird looks to its motionblur, that makes 3d- objects look too soft when composited into live- footage. You might have noticed it?
Maybe it was just the artists using too strong a motionblur, I dont know, but I have noticed that a few times in the past in other movies/tvproductions too.
Nevertheless MR is a good renderer. Still I dont really see why NT should buy it. It would be sufficient to improve LWs own renderer and offer an interface with MR (that people can then buy seperately if they really think, they need it).
As I already said there are only a few areas where LWs renderer needs to be improved. One major improvement should be speed (as I already said LW looses a lot of speed because of bad memory- management, memory- leaks and a few tiny bugs). The other one should be in the SDK- area. If NT manages to make LWs renderer open enough so people would be able to replace parts of it with 3rd- party- products, I think it would soon beat the hell out of any renderer on the market (imagine 3rd party texture- filtering, motionblur, Antialiasing, Radiosty, etc, etc all integrated asif it was a part of LWs core).
AFAIK MAX allows for this. So does AFAIK "Final Render" reuse parts of MAXs renderengine and replaces others with its own.
A very open architecture in all aspects is the key to MAXs success, which otherwise is (if you only look at the barebone system) mediocre at best. Without its plugin- architecture and modularity, that enables 3rd parties to add fantastic stuff to MAX quickly, noone would consider MAX a high- end product (trust me I had been using it in a professional environment for quite some time and it just sucked).
IMHO NewTek had for a too long time the (a bit oldfashioned) mentality, that they need to do everything on their own. This might have been true many years ago, but nowadays with the amount of competition and a general decline of the industry, it does not seem to reasonable to me anymore. You know discreet even offers bundles (or at least they used to do so for many years) MAX with Characterstudio, which is a 3rd party- product.
I have never seen NT do a bundle of LW with say a full version of SAS, G2, or XDof. I think that one can see this menatality in the SDK too. The SDK needs to be improved big time, or better should be completely rewritten from ground up. If you ever had the chance to look at the SDK of Digital Fusion, you will know what I mean. DFs SDK is much more modern, however I should admit that it is lacking the good documentation LWs SDK has got (especially because of the great community of LW- 3rd- party- developers, where one can get real good support). Nevertheless I really hope NT will now that the old team has gone consider a new mentality in this regard and starts opening LW to 3rd party- developers (I now I maybe get annyoing, but please add a procedural object class to begin with, thanks).
CU
Elmar

Emmanuel
06-15-2003, 12:01 PM
Hi,

yeah, I watched WWD, and I actually liked the modelling, but the lighting and texturing always looked a bit fake to me.
Not comparable to Jurassic Park, thats for sure.

http://forums.newtek.com/discus/messages/2/15865.html?

http://members.attcanada.ca/~m.murphy/dino.html

http://members.attcanada.ca/~m.murphy/short2.html

http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/spgm.php?g=LightWave3D&p=159&frpg=14&f=#pic

http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/spgm.php?g=LightWave3D&p=210&frpg=18&f=#pic

http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/spgm.php?g=LightWave3D&p=233&frpg=20&f=#pic

Okay, I think these illustrate very well, how good or bad LWs own renderer is, everybody can have his own opinion about it.

j3st3r
06-15-2003, 12:55 PM
Dinotopia as well...MR is beautiful. LW can do similar quality as well

Lamont
06-15-2003, 12:57 PM
Even so, the users main concern is speed.

sailor
06-15-2003, 12:58 PM
well i really think that LW renderer is VERY good...but again why bothering to have a Very good renderer if it is not used in very large production pipelines? hey before u answer to these one i will tell ya a point that lot of people are missing here....there is one VERY important thing that LW CANT do and that is still used in some of the best studios....and this of course goes with one of my other feature requests...and it is....TA DAAAAAA !!!!

NURBS RENDERING :D

Yes yes i know that MR and Renderman "tesselates" at a certain level but the important thing here is the workflow...wich means:

in the Nurbs workflow most of the hard surfaces modelers do what we cannot in subdivisions....adding local detail....how? with a fillet for example so what? well so they have more accurate and in the end less heavy models remember that a Nurbs non organic (non deformed) object can be built of patches of different density (not matching isoparms)...MR or Prenderman only need to know those surfaces have tangency or curvature continuity....no matter how many spans they have...and then? and then MR and Renderman can handle both NURBS level of detail and more important TRIMMED SURFACES...a real life example will be some of the ILM spaceships models ...some of them modelled in Studio Tools or in Maya Nurbs...they could just tesselatte them before rendering but, hey why do that when u have MR or PRenderman?
the same goes for people animating clothes...they usually model clothes in Nurbs ....if u are rendering with LW u have to tesselatte...if u are using MR or renderman u dont....
as simple as that....

Elmar Moelzer
06-15-2003, 01:12 PM
Excellent examples Emmanuel!
Here are a few more.

For me this is still one of the best CG- sharks I have ever seen:
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/spgm.php?g=LightWave3D&p=505&frpg=43&f=#pic

Superrealistic car:
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/spgm.php?g=LightWave3D&p=339&frpg=29&f=#pic

and another one:
http://www.newtek.com/products/lightwave/gallery/spgm.php?g=LightWave3D&p=396&frpg=34&f=#pic

I think all these images show what excelent artists can get out of LWs renderer. I would not say it looks much worse than any MR- stuff I have seen so far, but this is only my personal oppinion. As Emmanuel sad: try getting to your own.
CU
Elmar

j3st3r
06-15-2003, 01:21 PM
I think NURBS is used mostly for technical thing, like cars, spaceships, etc. For clothes? I think it is very illogical...For cloth simulation the dense mesh structure is essential. Nurbs curves doesn`t give you this tesselation. I think Subdivs are used in much wider range, than NURBS. Pixar uses subdivs for their characters, WETA used Subdiv characters in Two Towers. Nurbs are real pain in the ***, when it is used for characters. Your model is built up from separate NURBS patches, and they are often breaking the surface...

LW is left out of render pipelines for few simple reasons...
1. Lack of micropolygon displacment
2. Motion blur
3. any other stupid reasons

I think that NURBS can be very well replaced with subdivs. You have to learn the rules, and use them. I don`t think that NT has to follow the mass with MR, but alas that would be another point of incompatibility...Think of that studios are using Maya mainly because of it`s animation system (which is excellent) and MR. But XSI and Max users are also welcome, because the rendering will be on the same platform, so the same shaders can be utilized. Are you LW user? I`m sorry, we work with MR. I could imagine that. Anyway. Ithink LW has a great renderer. I hope, that LW will utilize the standards of the current renderers, and it will find it`s respectable place in the world.

SplineGod
06-15-2003, 01:48 PM
Stuart Aitken had some interesting comments about Lightwave GI in the LWdisc forum on yahoo groups:
"think of it this way:

say you add GI, backdrop only at 3*9 samples

for every pixel rendered lw has to shoot of an additional 27 rays that will
either hit the backdrop or another object

ie its potentially 27 times slower to render than no GI at all (though not
as much as that cos it doesn't have to compute the surface values for all
those GI rays)

chane GI settings to 1 bounce montecarlo and look what happens:

for every pixel rendered lw has to shoot of an additional 27 rays that will
either hit the backdrop or another object - if it hits another object it has
to compute the surface values for that surface *and* fire off another 27
rays for that surface to compute the lighting values there as well

so thats potentially 27*27 - ie 729 times slower to render than no GI at all

its similar with reflections added - if the GI rays hit a reflected surface
then they need to compute the radiosity for the reflected surface as well -
ie much like 2 bounce radiosity- you do the maths :)

add in soft refelections which again uses multiple rays stochastically
sampled to compute the soft effect and you are talking tens of thousands of
times slower than no GI/reflection at all....

sensible solution: rendeer out reflections as a seperate pass with no GI and
comp - its not as accurate but will be MUCH faster and you won't really
notice :)

same with anything else that uses multiple raycasting - ie area lights, etc

i did tests when ver 6.0 came out and rendering a base GI pass and an area
light pass and comping is an order of magnitude faster than having them both
on in the scene at once and looks almost the same...

there are things you can do to avoid this bruteforce approach but most of
them have other drawbacks like they won't work with motion blur or they
create their own types of artefacts (eg photonmapping which is what lw's
interpolated setting uses to cut down GI computations)

lightwave isn't as slow at GI as you think - its faster than mental ray for
instance

Stu Aitken
Head of 3D
AXIS|animation"

sailor
06-15-2003, 01:48 PM
Jester,

well NUrbs are in fact used for hard surfaces modelling (spaceships for instance) and there are still good reasons not to go subdivs for that (use of trimmed surfaces (impossible in subdivs) use of accurate booleans (impossible with subdivs) yes NURBS are mostly used for technical and spaceships and stuff like that...wich is a big part of the 3d pipeline of a movie like Attack of the clones !!!! so dont understimate the place of nurbs...and about clothes here at the studio the clothes guys only use Nurbs why? i dont know...maybe they are easier to use with Maya cloth? i have no idea but i can ensure u that at least here that is the way they work...i can also assure ya that ALL the droids ands machines at ILM hard surfaces workshop are NUrbs based....the Troll in LOTR was also NUrbs based (i dunno where is the link but i know that t it was first clay modeled, scanned and NUrbs repatched...they used a special script that creates the differences between isoparms (before and after nurbs rebuilding) converted into a displce map remapped in a low res Nurbs patched model...i dunno for the rest of charactrs...personally i perfer subdivs for charcaters as well and know that Final fantasy charcaters where polysmoothed or subdivided...
still have a lot of machinery done in Nurbs ...if we go to a percentage of 3d charcaters versus 3d machinery in a movie like Star wars i will tend to think that there is a much more important work on the machinery sets and props...:)

some other examples of NUrbs modelling are teh excellent Paul Ozzimo's models (rhino) for Minority report,Spiderman and MIB II

j3st3r
06-15-2003, 02:13 PM
Troll was a NURBS patch in FOTR, yes. But they migrated to subdiv in TTT.
Maya cloth is working with NURBS as well, AFAIK, but it tesselates everything. Most cloth and softbody engine works in a similar way. The polygonal edges behave like springs. Vertices do collisions. Nurbs doesn`t have edges...So modelling in NURBS can be done, but for proper simulation it should be tesselated.

Since everything is tesselated during render, I think a NURBS model could be easily translated into subdiv (maybe trims, and booleans would cause problems). But another thought. Subpatch, NURMS (max subdiv) and the rest uses a similar algorithm for subdividing as NURBS do. Think of subdiv cage as a NURBS Hull...

What I think is that LW`s patch modelling is powerful enough to replace NURBS. But we talk about rendering.

harhar
06-15-2003, 02:14 PM
i think MR's GI is faster than LIghtwave's

sailor
06-15-2003, 02:33 PM
Jester again :)

not trying to turn this into a NUrbs debate but:

the way trimmed surfaces are tesselated is simply perfect using renderman or MR...so no need to go subdivs nor polys....
plus the fact that project a curve into a surface is impossble in subdivisions surfaces as much as trimming or filleting blending....making specific solid filleting at a given radius is also a pain in the *** or imposible in subdivs...remember that any point in a nUrbs surface is pickable (this is not true in subdivisions) and also threre is no shrinking wolume (that occurs when using subdivision or smooth)LW subpatches can not compete with these tools and tehrefore there will always be some people goin to use Nurbs at differnt levels in production ....for those that are TODAY using NUrbs and that are not stupid but just needs a level of control taht subdivisions surfaces can not handle there is no solution using LW render apart from tesselating before rendering...the secondary tesselation settings and adaptative tesselation settings in MR or Renderman are awesome and need almost no tweaking...this makes hybrid NURBS/POLY and SUbdivs models (take the 4 wheel drive vehicle in final fantasy) that can be rendered with no extra manipulation from the artist...and for the clothes....NURBS patches are not tesselated by the artist in Maya...they are used in cloth simulation with Maya cloth as NURBS maybe they are tesselated at rendering time but this is not controlled by the animator/modeler so they simply dont care about and is not part of their workflow...

and as a conclusion....do u think that awesome 3d modelers as Ozzimo or Niessner or Peter Bakic never had a chance to try Subdivison surfaces? why the hell u think they still use NUrbs? just for fun? dont think so :)
what i'm trying to say is that NURBS technolgy is not an "old" technology but a "Differnet" technology" used for differnet purposes...out there in the 3d nebulae u have car manufacturers making 3d adds and industrial designers rendering everyday...they dont go subdivs because they are snob but because they have a need for class "a" surfaces that only NUrbs surfaces can obtain....i was just pointing the fact that bein able at any level to handle NUrbs geometry (even if there was a tesselation pass) would be an extra market for NT

U said that Maya tesselates at rendering time ....yes its true...and teh tesselation methods are quite complicated...now i'm talking about the MR tesselation methods wich are just fantastic and that are totally integrated now in Maya 5 :)

harhar
06-15-2003, 02:42 PM
there is no solution using LW render apart from tesselating before rendering

LW doesn't have nurbs at all.

kamil_w
06-15-2003, 02:48 PM
>>plus the fact that project a curve into a surface is impossble in subdivisions surfaces as much as trimming or filleting blending....making specific solid filleting at a given radius is also a pain in the *** or imposible in subdivs...

Maya`s subds evaluation method allows for large body of NURBS tools and techniques to be transfered to subds.

So it is possible. It is not there yet.

sailor
06-15-2003, 02:56 PM
u cannot grab a point in a subdivision surface in the middle of a poly face ....u can convert a poly to subdiv and a subdivision surface to a NUrbs...but not trim directly a subdiv nor project directly into a subdiv....actually converting a subdiv to a Nurbs is an easy trick if u know that poly edges are considered as degree 1 curves (it has always been like this in Maya) wich means that u can make a loft between 2 poly edges...if u know that then u can internally create a square patch using the poly proxy edges and the way back...rebuilding this into a degree 3 and voila u have a Nurbs patch based in a subdivision surface....but this is not possible if trimmed...or trimming surfaces is a very important thing that speeds up the surface creation process on hard surface models

about LW not handling NURBS i know it :) i was sayin that tesselating before rendering to use LW render is possible (if u tesselate in the Nurbs modelling soft i mean) once tesselated u can render in LW that was what i meant

Kamil: "Maya`s subds evaluation method allows for large body of NURBS tools and techniques to be transfered to subds. "

can u name those Nurbs tools that can be used on subdivs?

rebuild?,project surface curve?, trim? project tangent? square tanget surface? solid filleting? match continuity?pick an arbitary surface point? perfect booleans? inserting spline knots without curve deformation? splitting (inserting isoparm) without surafce kinks? UV normal point translate?

unless u are a ware of a very specific technology i'm not, subdiv modeling doesnt allows to do this at the mom and AFAIK it wont happen any soon...and that is the reason A/W allows now their users to convert subdivs to NURBS so that u can use the Nurbs toolset !!! this doesnt means that subdivs uses the NUrbs toolset but that NUrbs surfaces uses the NURBS toolset ....:p u have to convert first u see what i mean? and the subdiv to Nurbs translation is possible only in specific cases (no trim) and after all using that "edge trick" i was talking about

kamil_w
06-15-2003, 03:07 PM
Do not think about subds in Maya in "poly" terms.

They are parametric.

"Examples, include ray surface intersection, evaluating integrals over the surface (Finite Elements), curve on surface (for trimming), texture mapping, arbitrary tessellation, etc."

sailor
06-15-2003, 03:14 PM
parametric? i dunno whta u understand by "parametric" but parametric or not Maya subdivision doesnt aloows most of NUrbs tools to be used ...if u find a way to project a tangetnt onto a Subdiv surface for instance then bingo....:p or to make an inetrsection....hey at the moment i DO have to think polys with Maya subdivs because i cant directly "extrude" the Maya subdivs" but extrude the poly cage....i can only refine vertices to a finer level of detail...anyway what i know about subdivs (or poly smooth) is that they use Catmull Clark smoothing that is close to Nurbs "smoothing" method ....But that is all...the mathematical repersenatation of the surfaces is way more complicated when using NUrbs and can handle lots of tools that dont even exist on poly nor subdiv mode....smoothing is just a little part of the thing

sailor
06-15-2003, 03:15 PM
Kamil can u post a screeenshot of a subdivision surface with a curve projected onto? u first talked about NUrbs tools bein used on subdivs....those u mentioned are not tools but the way a surface is reperesented wich has nothing to do with a everydays universal Nurbs toolset....anybody from Rhino to Maya and from Solidworks to Catia knows what a G2 continuity is and the fact that u don need the same number of isos to match 2 surfaces....if this is possible using subdivs then great but i'm afraid that if u converts 2 differnt poly density into subdiv u will never obtain tangency nor continuity....the only way to obtain this in poly mode (or subdiv) is merging points....in Nurbs there is no need for this (unless u are deforming surfaces wich then means that continuity is obtained once but is hard to calculate in deformatiuon wich is not the same)

kamil_w
06-15-2003, 03:19 PM
I took those examples from research page of an AW employee.

He found this new method of evaluation which allows that.

kamil_w
06-15-2003, 03:25 PM
Crv on surface >

http://www.dgp.utoronto.ca/~stam/reality/Talks/SubdivEval/sld016.htm

sailor
06-15-2003, 03:27 PM
if that surface is a subdiv surface then i will say


a) it is at a research level
and
b) i have no idea when and how that will be implemented in a 3d software...and if this is possible then yes maybe then Subdivs will be better than Nurbs ...and that day i will ask to have those on LW !!!!

if u are sayin that this is a A/W case study then gosh they move fast !!!!

i once read a paper about booleans on subdivs...(wich means trimmed subdivs of course) but it was a research paper

kamil_w
06-15-2003, 03:30 PM
Yes this is subd surface. This technology is patented by AW.

Maya already uses some pieces of this techno.

sailor
06-15-2003, 03:35 PM
i see...very ineteresting...but at the mom all those kool NUrbs tool are not bein used on subdivs....but those links u gave suppose that they could be available in the future versions? right now there are not...but what an exciting idea !!!
that would explain the "tesselated" look of hierarchical subdivs !!!

great great

:) thanks for the link

Carnera
06-15-2003, 03:35 PM
oh...well...
over here at mba-studio we use lightwave and max for creating game cinematics.
i can tell that lw-renderer is really cool. in direct comparison with max renderer lw offers an instant good looking render result by pressing f9.
but i still think that lw-render-engine needs speed improvements and the radiosity needs a few moooooooooore options.
we are also using "final render" ....i cant tell much coz of nda-issues but what i can tell is that lightwaves render-look can compete but not it terms of speed and control. so i would probably invest my money in newteks-development-team instead of buying more pcīs. ;)

bye andras

MBA-studios (http://www.mba-studios.de)
Carnera3D-Seminars (http://www.carnera3d-seminars.de)

cgolchert
06-15-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by harhar
rendered with MR[/URL] (a Walking with dinos image)


That isn't that impressive out of the whole miniseries. That image could have been done in LW5.0

harhar
06-15-2003, 08:53 PM
you can't really compare renderers just by looking at images in the gallery, those images can be heavily post-processed. I don't see a lot of animations in the Lightwave gallery.

SplineGod
06-15-2003, 09:32 PM
Images can and are post processed. Thats a fact of this industry. The lack on animations in the LW gallery doesnt mean much either.

Emmanuel
06-16-2003, 02:29 AM
harhar:

arghhh, the WWD dinos ARE of course post processed, too, like anything that gets out of a renderer, do You really believe that MR images don't need post processing ?
Anyway, even post processed they don't look as good :)
And if I cant comapre renderes by looking at pictures, what should I use instead as a base for comparison ? Technical mumbo-jumbo ?
The final picture counts, nothing else.And I for one think that it soleley depends on the artists involved: model, textures, lighting.
There are awesome pictures created with the old MAX renderer, because some people know how to create good imagery with whatever they have as a tool, period.
The crew at ILM has created realistic lighting long before Radiosity was even thought of a as a production solution.
The effects for Children of Dune are awesome, still some of the old
Hercules CG-creatures are better than one exspected at that time for a TV-show (LW actually managed to allow artists to create these kind of FX on a very tight budget, when PowerAnimator was the elitist weapon of choice).

Maybe MR is sooooo much better, what the heck does that bother me ? Not at all, LW is primarly used for Video/Broadcast (its original target audience) with the bonus of beeing able to produce pictures that can even stand the big screen test, nuff said.
Now get a life folks.
We should get a new forum board titled "Techtalk".

Lightwolf
06-16-2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by kamil_w
Crv on surface >

http://www.dgp.utoronto.ca/~stam/reality/Talks/SubdivEval/sld016.htm
Well, aw has always been good on the scientific side, allowing time for research as well as development and supporting the scientific side of cg to a large extent.
Jos Stams is a very good example, his mayjor achievement being the fluid dynamics in Maya 4.5+, he demoed the basic technologies at Siggraph 2000, resulting in a collective round of jaw dropping by the audience (which, if I remember, included Gregory "Hypervoxel" Duquesne).
Sadly, smaller companies like NT don't have the resources to allow their staffer to devote their time to research for a year or two, without being productive ...

Cheers,
Mike

harhar
06-16-2003, 10:31 AM
heh, Lightwave can also produce ugly pics though.

Elmar Moelzer
06-16-2003, 11:05 AM
Harhar, what is the point of that post?
I bet I can produce an even worse image with MR, if I want to.
CU
Elmar

vrolfak
06-16-2003, 11:30 AM
almost always that a pic like that comes out is cause of something that YOU are doing wrong not lightwave, so itīs not really lightwaves fault. its yours caues you didnt know how to use it.

mattclary
06-16-2003, 11:33 AM
So what harhar is saying, is he needs an iD10T compensation button, not a better class of render engine.

Nicodemus
06-16-2003, 11:37 AM
Must we degenerate to calling names. Let's try and keep this on a semi-reasonable level.

~L~

harhar
06-16-2003, 12:25 PM
my point is just because you think a lightwave rendered image looks better than a MR rendered image, doesn't mean Lightwave's better than MR.

Emmanuel
06-16-2003, 01:28 PM
Harhar,

I must agree ! That's totally right, and of course this is also valid for saying that MR is better than LW.

Greets,
Emmanuel

PS:I love that image, green and orange go very well together !!

SplineGod
06-16-2003, 01:51 PM
Havng har har binks around really makes me appreciate CIM more. :)

Nicodemus
06-16-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by harhar
my point is just because you think a lightwave rendered image looks better than a MR rendered image, doesn't mean Lightwave's better than MR.

So by the same token Just because you seem to like the MR rendered image that does not make it better than Lightwaves render.

~L~

cresshead
06-16-2003, 01:58 PM
boy is this disscussion becoming pointless...this pik is better than that pik...yawn!

details???

come on harhar...do the biz and lay out just what makes mental images renderer THAT much better than lightwave and JUST what newtek should add to lightwave's renderer to make up for what you percieve as any short commings in lightwave 7.5...

is micropoly subdivision one of them for instance?

steve g

harhar
06-16-2003, 02:22 PM
So by the same token Just because you seem to like the MR rendered image that does not make it better than Lightwaves render.

I like mentalray simply because it's overall faster raytracing, GI, adptive tesselation, adpative displacement, quasi-monte carlo.

If Lightwave is to compete, it needs a lot of improvement in GI, like fix the color bleeding thingy, and add quasi-monte carlo.

Titus
06-16-2003, 02:26 PM
Yes, but who can afford GI in production environment?

harhar
06-16-2003, 02:41 PM
Yes, but who can afford GI in production environment?

Too slow for making movies, but good for render beautiful imageries for magazines and publications.

cresshead
06-16-2003, 03:15 PM
..gi from lightwave is not that slow..they used it for the coke advert [three legged soccer player thingy]and also for the halifax adverts [t.v ad in the u.k]..also for the nike advert where the robot feet on the mechanical basketball work out..see luxology for that..

so gi and hdri is very usable for animation "as is"...and looks quite nice too.



steve g

SplineGod
06-16-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by harhar
I like mentalray simply because it's overall faster raytracing, GI, adptive tesselation, adpative displacement, quasi-monte carlo.

If Lightwave is to compete, it needs a lot of improvement in GI, like fix the color bleeding thingy, and add quasi-monte carlo.
What do you mean "IF"? . LW DOES compete and does so nicely and its cost effective.

cavalos
06-16-2003, 04:56 PM
I donīt get why MR is so popular, I saw walking with dinosaurs in detail and to be very honest I donīt see a "huge" diference between LW and MR. But PRman is whole another story, is amazing how a "simple" scanline renderer looks so good.
Letīs take Jurassic Park for instance as someone points before, Prman looks terrific even 10 years ago when the picture was released, I mean 10 years is too much time in 3D animation and Prman still looks at least better than any other dinosaur animation done in LW nowdays.

Best
Christian

harhar
06-16-2003, 05:18 PM
jurrasic park had a 70 million dollar budget. I'd be surprised if Walking with Dinasours has more than 10 million dollar budget.

harhar
06-16-2003, 05:21 PM
And I don't think WWD uses any newer technology than Jurrasic Park. I don't think WWD has raytracing, or GI ect.

Emmanuel
06-17-2003, 02:53 AM
What I can not believe is when someone says that MR GI renders *100 times* faster than LWs.

Also, as has been stated multiple times now, its less a matter of render quality than rather what the post-processing does with it.
PRman doesn't look as good un-processed as it does on the big screen, that's for sure.
So really folks, this discussion is pretty pointless unless You consider the work of the post-artists involved.

cresshead
06-17-2003, 04:56 AM
if you look into it, lightwave has a blinder of a renderer...most of the prman and mental ray renders we see have been run through the likes of inferno,combustion,fusion or even after effects where they comp all the layers [difuse,spec,reflection,shadow etc..] to fine tune and tweek...

most renders we see form lightwave [loads in the gallery for example] are straight from the renderer...or tweeked in photoshop...we we can render to straight from lightwave.

steve g

Emmanuel
06-17-2003, 08:07 AM
Well,

maybe because senseless software-hopping don't pay my bills, while LWs ability to let me create nice looking artworks for games and book covers does ?

beverins
06-17-2003, 08:29 AM
Well, tweaked or not, all the matters is the output. No client cares what you used or how fast you did it.

Sure, more features and controls are nice. XSI costs upwards of $5K. Maya as well.

Lightwave is being given away with HP Workstations, its so inexpensive. LOL

Avid has the cash to throw at XSI. Maya as well. Newtek has a problem that they don't WANT to put a stranglehold on their customers with ridiculous licensing fees, support fees, and other rigmarole. With Lightwave, you buy the software and use it... free support, no licensing fees other than having to buy a license per seat (and that's standard practice).

Anyway, to the point..... if the output is all that matters, who CARES how you got there? If you can do it faster in XSI, that's fine, but can you do it BETTER? That's doubtful.

Exper
06-17-2003, 08:33 AM
Can we ask for a possible compromise? ;)
1) Open renderer SDK
2) GI+render-engine revamp
3) A full-featured RIB exporter

Bye.

mattclary
06-17-2003, 08:57 AM
I'm sure that LW will have improvements in the rederer when 8 comes out. If all the bashboys (opposite of fanboy?) still aren't satisfied, please go hang out on the Maya and XSI forums. I just really don't understand why you insist on hanging around on the forum of such an inferior piece of software. LightWave suits my needs and it's easy to use. Nuff said.

meshmaster
06-17-2003, 09:04 AM
Take a look at http://tw.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=Cg_FAQ_CHT


DCC applications and tools vendors, like Right Hemisphere’s Deep Exploration product, Alias|Wavefront Maya, Discreet 3ds max, SOFTIMAGE|XSI and NewTek LightWave 3D, are embedding Cg into the digital artist’s workflow.

Exper
06-17-2003, 09:12 AM
Good news meshmaster!!!
Hoping they're really working on Cg (this should mean... "HardwareRendering" also).
Maybe available in LW8??? :p

Look at:
http://www.cgshaders.org/shaders
for some interesting Cg shaders. ;)

Bye.

Emmanuel
06-17-2003, 09:45 AM
"Well, then use LW and stop pretending you have a clue about other software."

Actually, I didn't pretend to have a clue about other software (I am currently learning maya), but instead, I was asking for a better explanation than the usual "LW users are fanboys, blah!" by CIM without
substance.

Probably I am one of those fanboys who prefer
"LW's renderer does have one thing over MR: it's really easy to use and get things done."
instead of senseless techtalk mumbo-jumbo thats loosely based on what I heard, instead of just looking at the produced results.
Or maybe I am one of those brainless kiddies who just don't believe hypes and statements from self-proclaimed experts who can preach the in and outs of render engines by denying the simple fact of the rendered picture.
:D

Exper
06-17-2003, 10:08 AM
Can we stop this silly flame here and be a little more constructive? :(

So... in my own personal opinion:
1) Open renderer SDK
2) GI+render-engine revamp
3) A full-featured RIB exporter

Bye.

cresshead
06-17-2003, 11:07 AM
would be nice huh?...less flames more constructive ideas for lightwave 8's renderer

steve g

Exper
06-17-2003, 11:28 AM
AutoQUOTE... ehehehe... ;)
Originally posted by Exper
2) GI+render-engine revamp

A small bounce of features for "2) GI+render-engine revamp":
(not in sorted order)
2.1) Reflection & Refraction Surface based exclusion list (similar to lights)
2.2) AutoReflection & AutoRefraction ON/OFF and Surface based
2.3) "Ordered" Radiosity solution
2.4) More in-deep Radiosity settings/parameters
2.5) More accurate and light sensitive Caustics
2.6) Volumetric Caustics
2.7) Photometric lighting
2.8) Cylindrical-Spot + Rectangular-Spot + Pyramidal-Spot lights
2.9) DeepShadows
2.10) Everything else NT wants add/improve! ;)

Bye.

Doug Nicola
06-17-2003, 01:57 PM
I know, a reference to Luxology is probably the last thing this thread needs. So shoot me. I just can't help myself. :)

Speculation: I think NT and Luxology have something cooking which is going to be another breakthrough in the rendering price/performance arena. Lux has too many technology references (partners, consultants) on their site for them not to be working on something big, I think. Something so big that NewTek really wants to keep control of how it unfolds.

"Rendering improvements" was just too conspicuously absent from the press release.

mattclary
06-17-2003, 02:09 PM
I agree with you Doug. I think there is one big m***** f****** rabbit getting ready to come out of a hat soon.

Doug Nicola
06-17-2003, 03:09 PM
"Cook! Cook! Where's my hasenfeffer?!"

Exper
06-19-2003, 09:41 AM
The "Great & Holy Chuck" has reopened this Thread.
Thanks a lot! :p

Bye.

Chuck
06-19-2003, 12:51 PM
I should mention all of us here are totally puzzled as to how it got closed in the first place. We are concerned that the thread may have become sentient and self-closing, and if so, who know what else it may be capable of! :eek:

Chuck
06-19-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Exper
The "Great & Holy Chuck" has reopened this Thread.
Thanks a lot! :p

Bye.

Actually that should be "Large and Occasionally Dignified"... ;)

colkai
06-20-2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Chuck
Actually that should be "Large and Occasionally Dignified"... ;)

Heh,
At least that's better than overly large and often undignified ;) ;) ;)

Go on Chuck, throw us a bone here, please... Just a "oh yeah there *are* changes to the renderer" would do honest !! :D

Exper
06-20-2003, 02:40 AM
What about a complete/full-featured and integrated RIB exporter? ;)

Bye.

Lightwolf
06-20-2003, 02:44 AM
What about going one step further, and making lwsn .rib compliant as well? Give renderman a run for its money...

Cheers,
Mike