PDA

View Full Version : Turning Anti-Aliasing OFF in 9.2?



Giacomo99
04-25-2007, 06:39 AM
Hello-

Is there any way to turn anti-aliasing off completely? I want to do test renders, and it's a real pain to wait through the anti-aliasing passes.

I try to set the antialiasing level to "0" and it defaults to "1".

Please advise.

jameswillmott
04-25-2007, 06:42 AM
Antialiasing level 1 is Off as long, as the reconstruction filter is set to Classic, otherwise it will do the equivalent of PLD-1 antialiasing.

Giacomo99
04-25-2007, 07:58 AM
Antialiasing level 1 is Off as long, as the reconstruction filter is set to Classic, otherwise it will do the equivalent of PLD-1 antialiasing.

No, it isn't. What you're saying is flat wrong, except as noted below. With the reconstruction filter on Classic, the renderer still does several passes of antialisasing.

However, I DID manage to produce a non-antialiased render by turning "Adaptive Sampling" off. (As usual, this appears nowhere in the documentation, so those people who (like me) have been in the habit of using "Adaptive Sampling" on every render are going to be scratching their heads for awhile unless they find this thread.)

Red_Oddity
04-25-2007, 08:22 AM
Actually, this has been said in the manual, not in direct manner, but when you read up on how the AA in LW9.2 has changed to 9.0 (especially concerning Adaptive Sampling) you can deduce it from that text.

jameswillmott
04-25-2007, 08:35 AM
No, it isn't. What you're saying is flat wrong, except as noted below. With the reconstruction filter on Classic, the renderer still does several passes of antialisasing.


Flat wrong? Rubbish.



However, I DID manage to produce a non-antialiased render by turning "Adaptive Sampling" off. (As usual, this appears nowhere in the documentation, so those people who (like me) have been in the habit of using "Adaptive Sampling" on every render are going to be scratching their heads for awhile unless they find this thread.)

What I said was correct, but I also forgot to suggest that Adaptive Sampling might have been turned on, but it seems you found that out yourself. Many people are finding Adaptive Sampling by itself to be very effective.

Giacomo99
04-25-2007, 09:14 AM
...not in a direct manner...

To put it mildly. The entire process of antialiasing in 9.2 and how it relates to the rendering process has been completely re-engineered.

Whatever virtues the new approach may possess, I think it can fairly be said that a) the new system is far less intuitive than the old and b) anyone not savvy enough to figure it out on their own is not going to find the manual much help.

Way to go, Newtek!

Giacomo99
04-25-2007, 09:26 AM
Jameswilmott- sorry, you were correct. (As you can surmise from reading this thread, I hadn't figured out that Adaptive Sampling is now integrated into the antialiasing process.)

jameswillmott
04-25-2007, 09:28 AM
Yeah, as you found out, it's not explained very well in the manual's and the behaviour of Adaptive Sampling is quite different now to what it was. A change for the better I feel though... :)

Lightwolf
04-25-2007, 09:51 AM
... I think it can fairly be said that a) the new system is far less intuitive than the old ...
Only because we are used to the old system. The new AA is a lot more powerful than what we had before and allows for some nice quality vs. time tuning.
Plus the DoF and motion blur are gorgeous...

Cheers,
Mike

Red_Oddity
04-25-2007, 11:18 AM
To put it mildly. The entire process of antialiasing in 9.2 and how it relates to the rendering process has been completely re-engineered.

Whatever virtues the new approach may possess, I think it can fairly be said that a) the new system is far less intuitive than the old and b) anyone not savvy enough to figure it out on their own is not going to find the manual much help.

Way to go, Newtek!

Well, it does takes getting used to, but it does make sense once you get the hang of it (doesn't everything?)

Also, i found the new manuals to be quite well written, or atleast a whole lot more informative than the old (pre 9) manuals, eventhough layout wise it is still a bit of a beta aswell.

Ztreem
04-26-2007, 08:15 AM
I've never read the manual and I don't think I ever will, but I can tell you that much, that once you get used to the new AA system you don't want to go back to the old one.

Lightwolf
04-26-2007, 08:16 AM
I've never read the manual ...
I'm too stingy to not read the manual ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Ztreem
04-26-2007, 08:23 AM
I'm too stingy to not read the manual ;)

Cheers,
Mike

I'm too lazy. :) ... Not really, I just like the trial and error method for learning.:)

Lightwolf
04-26-2007, 08:32 AM
I'm too lazy. :) ... Not really, I just like the trial and error method for learning.:)
That's allright. I guess I'm even lazier than you... I don't like to waste my time with trial and error ;) (that happens often enough if the docs are wrong, misleading ot incomplete anyhow... :thumbsdow ).

Cheers,
Mike

Ztreem
04-26-2007, 08:40 AM
Trial and error can waste your time, but at the same time you always learn something new...so maybe it wasn't a waste of time?
I always feel like if you learn something by being told or by reading, it's easy to think that it must work the way you learned. By trial and error you can often find other ways of doing things and other use for tools that was not designed to do that in the first place. I agree that it can take some time to learn those small nifty things that you learn by reading. I should read more in general, but I just want to create. :)

Lightwolf
04-26-2007, 08:44 AM
Trial and error can waste your time, but at the same time you always learn something new...so maybe it wasn't a waste of time?
I just find it allows me to make more educated guesses when I actually try out the stuff - but I tend to read first, then try and then maybe read it up again.

Cheers,
Mike

Ztreem
04-26-2007, 08:46 AM
I think it's good. We all are different, I think I'm a fast learner so before I have read the thing I've allready found out how it works by trial and error. I'm a slow reader... :)

Lightwolf
04-26-2007, 09:18 AM
I think it's good. We all are different, I think I'm a fast learner so before I have read the thing I've allready found out how it works by trial and error. I'm a slow reader... :)
Oh no doubt about that. I just suppose that there are many times when actually looking up something can save you from many hours of frustration.
I just need to look at some support e-mails I get from customers where I'd be almost be tempted to reply with an RTFPDF ;) (then again, I tend to be too polite to do that).

Cheers,
Mike

Ztreem
04-26-2007, 09:31 AM
Yes, absolutly true.

Giacomo99
04-28-2007, 09:02 AM
Just to put in my two cents on the "learn by fooling around with the software vs. learn by reading the manual" debate: I make my living as a one-man studio doing jobs with fairly short deadlines.

For most jobs I have little or no time to mess around with the software and hope I'll figure it out--if I can't quickly get the result I need with a particular tool, I just have to go some other route. So it's really, really important for the documentation to be as precise, practical and specific as possible.

In this case, I figured the problem out, but there are plenty of instances in Lightwave where the tool is so poorly documented (i.e, the MipMap issue with node-based displacement) that it's taken me days of forum posting to get any result at all.