PDA

View Full Version : DOF worst case!



jaxtone
01-25-2009, 08:53 AM
Why does the final render become this bad when adding DOF with standard settings to a scene? I have even tried to change the settings but those jagged pixels are the worst I ever seen... (This is not Depth of Field! It´s more like Death of Field!)

XDOF! Shape up and release a 64 bit version NOW!
http://www.evasion3d.com/xd_lw_intro.html

Lightwolf
01-25-2009, 08:58 AM
Probably because it's all out of focus and needs more AA to clean up?

Cheers,
Mike

Weepul
01-25-2009, 04:01 PM
"Standard settings"? I hope at least you bothered to set the focus distance to something relevant to your scene! (Doesn't look like it, though.)

LW's DOF is completely raytraced and needs a lot of AA to clean up. Otherwise, you'll get very noisy results like you posted. X-DOF looks great but is less accurate and doesn't work well with LW's photorealistic motion blur.

Dodgy
01-25-2009, 04:05 PM
http://www.mikegreen.name/MyImages/ElectricGuitar.jpg

I love the new dof. Like the others say you just need to do more AA passes, or reduce the value of your Adaptive threshold so it cleans it up.

Hopper
01-25-2009, 07:45 PM
There is no "standard setting". How could there be. DOF isn't magic. It can't possibly know what your scale is, the focal distance to your subject, etc...

That's like pointing your SLR camera across the yard at random and wondering why your focus is off.

jaxtone
01-25-2009, 08:05 PM
In this case my point was not to send over a rendered image with a perfect focus at all! The image I sent was more a statement or a cry for help according to a very ugly default result!

I have now played around a little bit more with the different DOF settings but didn´t get any good results at all. I did stop trying make it look better when the AA was set to 30 without any acceptable results! I also adjusted the adaptive sampling settings down a bit but that didn´t help to lower the extremely long render times either. So I decided to render an image with the default settings and attach it here since I experienced the output image result as totally wacked. I believed that someone who knew more about this than me could help!

I have tried to raise the AA level up to 80 and also have change the Focal Distance and all other settings that are available but the result is still very bad! I don´t know about you, but I got a deadline to support and about 12 000 frames to render in a quite short time. So I would rather use the reliable and fast XDOF, if they only could make a 64 bit version!


Probably because it's all out of focus and needs more AA to clean up?

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-25-2009, 08:23 PM
Once again, the image sample I sent had only one purpose, to show these very ugly jagged pixels that occupies the image!

I have of course played around with all settings available but only came to the same conclusion! The resolution can only be fixed if you add incredebly long render times! Bad! Bad! Bad!

I read what you say according to the XDOF and disagree with you 100% since my own experience when using it in commercials and for event films is the opposite of what you just wrote! About Lightwave´s photorealistic motion blur I cannot say anything else than that I skipped this years ago just because it didn´t look realistic and took to long to render with!

Let the XDOF in 64 bit be for real very soon cause it will run over this stupid and slow part of the old Lightwave engine interface right off!


"Standard settings"? I hope at least you bothered to set the focus distance to something relevant to your scene! (Doesn't look like it, though.)

LW's DOF is completely raytraced and needs a lot of AA to clean up. Otherwise, you'll get very noisy results like you posted. X-DOF looks great but is less accurate and doesn't work well with LW's photorealistic motion blur.

jaxtone
01-25-2009, 08:26 PM
Sorry I meant "default setting"!

... but again my image was never meant to be a perfect one... just as crappy and jaggy as a render with DOF as the default setting produces!


There is no "standard setting". How could there be. DOF isn't magic. It can't possibly know what your scale is, the focal distance to your subject, etc...

That's like pointing your SLR camera across the yard at random and wondering why your focus is off.

jaxtone
01-25-2009, 08:48 PM
Thats a great mix between a Strat and a Telecaster! If you fix the buggy tremolo arm I could even try to play on it!

I see that you worked a lot to make the guitar look great on that single rendered frame of yours... that´s good! I wonder how many AA´s you chosed to use before rendering it out!

Let me put it this way... I got 10-12 000 frames to render in a few days only and I don´t see that this will be possible with more AA´s since they take an awful lot of time to render out!

Maybe it´s a bad taste thing to saying this, but I don´t believe that LW ever thought of changing this sleepy old interface since to many Lightwaver´s out there seems to enjoy very long and time consuming render times!



http://www.mikegreen.name/MyImages/ElectricGuitar.jpg

I love the new dof. Like the others say you just need to do more AA passes, or reduce the value of your Adaptive threshold so it cleans it up.

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 02:21 AM
... but again my image was never meant to be a perfect one... just as crappy and jaggy as a render with DOF as the default setting produces!
Mission accomplished, what was the point though?

Next: a character animated with an IK chain at default settings ;)

Back OT though: I've used it quite a few times and I do get predictable results every time. The only setting that can be confusing at the start is the F-Stop, but there's tools to help you with that as well as the OpenGL DoF preview function.

*shrugs*

Cheers,
Mike

Darth Mole
01-26-2009, 02:55 AM
I may be wrong, but for an animation you'd be better off rendering a depth map and doing DOF in post. I did a nice DOF render over the weekend but to get decent quality I had AA set to 200 and was rendering at a huge res. Naturally, it wasn't exactly quick.

Depth-of-field rendered 'in-camera' isn't quick or easy; it needs a huge amount of samples to make it work. Evasion's X-Dof plug-in will do a nice job as post-render effect

http://www.evasion3d.com/xd_lw_intro.html

Or Frischluft do this plug-in for After Effects

http://www.frischluft.com/lenscare/index.php

Check out the examples of 3D-rendered vs post DOF.

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 05:43 AM
My point was not to show off how fast and great the DOF in Lightwave worked... it was the opposite! I didn´t either have any intentions to show off a great picture where everything was perfectly well done to suite the already convinced believers of that Lightwaves DOF has got the ultimate solution for speed and quality.

The only thing I wanted to do was to tell that I personally doesn´t enjoy when render times are long in quite common processes that DOF really are! Meaning that anything that can cut down work processes and of course even render times are a benefit for any producer!

I believe that Lightwave´s DOF traditionally always have been slow and therefore I have earlier avoided to use it! I am convinced that there must be a future in faster solutions for Lightwaves DOF!

P.S. When you joke about things, beware of that some of these things one day may become true! Especially the CA with an IK chain at default settings, and it even talks nine languages fluently as well! :D


Mission accomplished, what was the point though? Next: a character animated with an IK chain at default settings ;)

Back OT though: I've used it quite a few times and I do get predictable results every time. The only setting that can be confusing at the start is the F-Stop, but there's tools to help you with that as well as the OpenGL DoF preview function.

*shrugs*

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 05:50 AM
My point was not to show off how fast and great the DOF in Lightwave worked... it was the opposite!
The only thing you've showed so far is your limited understanding of LW DoF.


I didn´t either have any intentions to show off a great picture where everything was perfectly well done to suite the already convinced believers of that Lightwaves DOF has got the ultimate solution for speed and quality.
Nobody said that - there is hardly ever a single solution that covers all bases. However, what it does it does well, if you need something quicker (which seems to be your main concern) then there are plenty of ways to fake it.
Just don't blame the DoF if it's not the tool you currently need for you job, especially as there are alternatives as you've even stated.


The only thing I wanted to do was to tell that I personally doesn´t enjoy when render times are long in quite common processes that DOF really are! Meaning that anything that can cut down work processes and of course even render times are a benefit for any producer!
Do DoF completely in post then. It's a easy as that (with all the drawbacks that come with it of course...).


I believe that Lightwave´s DOF traditionally always have been slow and therefore I have earlier avoided to use it! I am convinced that there must be a future in faster solutions for Lightwaves DOF!
It depends really. Combine it with motion blur and you'd be hard pressed to find a renderer that manages that quality at the same speed.
Would a faster option that fakes more be desireable? Sure, why not. Again, there's plenty of third party options for that though.


P.S. When you joke about things, beware of that some of these things one day may become true! Especially the CA with an IK chain at default settings! And it talks to! :D
Cheers,
Mike - after 19 years, still waiting for the one button CG app ;)

archijam
01-26-2009, 05:59 AM
Mike - save your advice for emergencies only! You know a fairy loses it's wings every time you quote someone, right? ;)

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 06:14 AM
Thanks for your great links and you´re definitely right when you suggest the Post Production process instead of the DOF in Lightwave. The Post Process action is mostly use but I actually wanted to see what Lightwave 9.6 could offer according to speed and quality! The quality is great if you add enough levels of AA to the DOF, but the extremely slow render process in Lightwave when adding DOF is not an option!

I have now contacted Evasion again to see if they have any future plans releasing a 64 bit version for Vista of their extremely great X-Dof plugin for Lightwave! The Frishluft plugin for After-FX also is interesting since it handle depth maps and cut render times. A great solution for anyone that doesn´t prefer extreme render sessions!

I want to add this... I ain´t working under a huge Hollywood budget, and I don´t have a team of render monkeys writing optimal scripts for me. I am just a small one man company owner that tries to make my customers happy before the end of 2012! So the twisting and tweaking and endless render routines to reach Shangri-La isn´t written in blood in my 3D-agenda! Yet!

:beerchug:


I may be wrong, but for an animation you'd be better off rendering a depth map and doing DOF in post. I did a nice DOF render over the weekend but to get decent quality I had AA set to 200 and was rendering at a huge res. Naturally, it wasn't exactly quick.

Depth-of-field rendered 'in-camera' isn't quick or easy; it needs a huge amount of samples to make it work. Evasion's X-Dof plug-in will do a nice job as post-render effect

http://www.evasion3d.com/xd_lw_intro.html

Or Frischluft do this plug-in for After Effects

http://www.frischluft.com/lenscare/index.php

Check out the examples of 3D-rendered vs post DOF.

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 06:26 AM
I want to add this... I ain´t working under a huge Hollywood budget, and I don´t have a team of render monkeys writing optimal scripts for me. I am just a small one man company owner that tries to make my customers happy before the end of 2012! So the twisting and tweaking and endless render routines to reach Shangri-La isn´t written in blood in my 3D-agenda! Yet!
One could argue that the small budgets are precisely the reason why the twisting and tweaking whould be in your 3D agenda ;)

I mean, I know where you come from, and you need to work smarter as you (and your customers I suppose) can't afford the "harder" path of solving a problem.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 07:17 AM
I really hope you aren´t holding my lack of knowledge against me as a Nietzsche inspired elititistic quation! :D

I always try to adapt at a beginners level but if it´s obvious quite early in the process that the effort in get in to the depth of a technique, disadvantaged function or that time consuming workarounds in any aspect overshadow my main goals, I have to forget about it. In this case I am not interested in getting into the depth since it seems to waste more energy than it gives back to the project itself.

This is one of the links I read while trying to understand the principles of AA in the new Lightwave! http://www.except.nl/lightwave/aa/index.htm

But "Post" it will be for this ongoing project just because time is such a precoius thing!


The only thing you've showed so far is your limited understanding of LW DoF.

Nobody said that - there is hardly ever a single solution that covers all bases. However, what it does it does well, if you need something quicker (which seems to be your main concern) then there are plenty of ways to fake it.
Just don't blame the DoF if it's not the tool you currently need for you job, especially as there are alternatives as you've even stated.

Do DoF completely in post then. It's a easy as that (with all the drawbacks that come with it of course...).

It depends really. Combine it with motion blur and you'd be hard pressed to find a renderer that manages that quality at the same speed.
Would a faster option that fakes more be desireable? Sure, why not. Again, there's plenty of third party options for that though.

Cheers,
Mike - after 19 years, still waiting for the one button CG app ;)

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 07:19 AM
In this case I am not interested in getting into the depth since it seems to waste more energy than it gives back to the project itself.
Then why ask in the first place? :D

Cheers,
Mike

CC Rider
01-26-2009, 07:21 AM
I have the best results combining DOF with photoreal motion blur. Even if there is no motion in the shot, the additional passes really will clean up the image and give you what you are looking for. Try the settings you used for the original image and add 4 or 5 passes of motion blur. You should only need about 3 or 4 AA passes and try AS at about .03
(I assumed you were using perspective camera...give it a shot if you weren't...)

This would just be a test of course... the scene you posted wouldn't have a tremendous amount of blur to it in the real world, being outside in bright sun. Looks like you're using maybe a 35 -50mm lens... Also, depends on where your focal plane is.

But those settings should get you close to where you want to be.

biliousfrog
01-26-2009, 07:32 AM
Personally, I do all DOF in post, it's faster and offers realtime updates. Photoshop and After Effect's lens blur are pretty good, I've used Frishluft but it doesn't suit everything. Maybe it isn't as accurate as doing it all in Lightwave?...dunno, if it works and looks good then why not.

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 07:37 AM
Maybe it isn't as accurate as doing it all in Lightwave?...
The usual culprits... transparency, reflections and the combination with motion blur.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 07:48 AM
I believe you misunderstood me! Sayin´that I haven´t got a Hollywood budget doesn´t mean the same as a low budget! Maybe it´s because I explained it in a bad way but I must say that your conclusion on is totally wrong!

The twisting and tweaking isn´t an optional ingridient in my world just as little now, as when I painted oils, wrote music or designed crank shafts. I hardly believe it´s a advantage on any common artist´s agenda because it sucks your veins from energy! Maybe this is a little to deep but ask yourself which parts of your brain that get the biggest satisfaction when you either chose to get into the depth of a technical problem or just create something inspirational from the depth of your heart! To me thats two different cases and I don´t believe it´s hard for you to judge which alternative I prefer! Just to release time and energy for other and more important purposes than being a technician!

I truly believe that some people prefer to solve technical problems, and this is interesting because since day one these guys mostly take for granted that the rest of the world will have the same desires! Well I have not!

I have not an interest in being a technician more than necessary and always try to find the easy way out nowadays. If there´s is a faster alternative that at least reach 90% of the result that´s fine with me as long as my customer doesn´t have any input on this. This gives me much more time to create new openings for projects in music, art and film!

For some people the battle with technical problems and solutions for the very same is an actual job, "respect", but to some it might just appear as a cheaper alternative than psychotherapy!

I don´t think you know as much about me as you says! The reason I mostly works alone is because I prefer that though many younger 3D guys are very skilled in detailed information and techniques they cannot see the whole perspective in a production! I found it so damn exhausting arguing about deadlines and budgets with people without experience from customer relations or project management so I decided to do it myself, and up to date this have been a great solution for me and my customers!



One could argue that the small budgets are precisely the reason why the twisting and tweaking whould be in your 3D agenda ;)

I mean, I know where you come from, and you need to work smarter as you (and your customers I suppose) can't afford the "harder" path of solving a problem.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 07:58 AM
I have not an interest in being a technician more than necessary and always try to find the easy way out nowadays.
Everybody does. However, CG is still quite a technical field, you'll always be confronted with situations like that. And the better you understand the process, the easier your work will be (just like in any other case).

After all, you don't blame the camera for crappy pictures if the DoP doesn't know how to handle his tools in the first place (He might though, but that's not really being productive either, is it?).

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 08:05 AM
This exactly how I solved productions during the latest 8 years and this have been a perfect match both for international events, broadcast and other solutions where film and 3D have been involved.

Maybe thats why I was so chocked when I decided to give Lightwave another shot after eight years! I actually thought that the improvement in the render engine would convince me to use the DOF inside Lightwave, but I cannot defend this in any aspect since it would ruin every deadline I would imagine!

Its strange to hear that people even think about using such slow render methods though my experience is that it ain´t unusual that customers want the job done "yesterday"!

P.S. I spoke to a friend today and he also wondered why I was even mention DOF and AA in Lightwave! According to him must be one of the most eager spokesmen for creating almost every effect in post! I just wanna tell everyone once more that I were interested in seeing if Lightwave had improved it´s render speed when it comes to DOF and AA during the years!

It had, but not enough, and it didn´t convince me to even think about doing the post anywhere else than in a Post Program!


Personally, I do all DOF in post, it's faster and offers realtime updates. Photoshop and After Effect's lens blur are pretty good, I've used Frishluft but it doesn't suit everything. Maybe it isn't as accurate as doing it all in Lightwave?...dunno, if it works and looks good then why not.

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 08:29 AM
Well, I was curious after eight years!

There was a moment in the past when I decided not to use Lightwave´s or any other 3D-application´s built in Post Production attempts at all! This was all connected to harsh reality in a customer case that included an international network of sub-companies and a fast workflow that didn´t give you any optional re-rendering processes or endless twistin´ and tweakin´at all! I must admit that to me it was a release to let Lightwave do the 3D- stuff and let the Post Programs do what they were good at!

Since that I have been rendering stuff in a very basic way in different 3D-applications and prefer to use post programs for the Post Production Process! But hey now, maybe thats why it´s called post production! :D

It gives me so much freedom to adjust the basic 3D and filmed content in a very fast way when you need to adapt to films that is scanned in a different way that the pre-shots, or having trouble with scenes that have been shot with different cameras in a very late stage of the production. There´s no chance that Lightwave´s extremely slow rendering engine would fit into any of these workflows though they´re as you probably already know connected to budgets, teams and time limits!

I started this thread after my first attempt in EIGHT years, to give Lightwave´s DOF and AA another chance to show off what it could do! I admit I have to chose post since it´s not an affordable to do it "your way"!




Then why ask in the first place? :D

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 08:31 AM
Of course I blame the camera!

Who do you think I am, Ghandi? :D


Everybody does. However, CG is still quite a technical field, you'll always be confronted with situations like that. And the better you understand the process, the easier your work will be (just like in any other case).

After all, you don't blame the camera for crappy pictures if the DoP doesn't know how to handle his tools in the first place (He might though, but that's not really being productive either, is it?).

Cheers,
Mike

kopperdrake
01-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Hi Jaxtone, I'm just curious if your scene is radiosity lit?

I've just loaded up a model, lit it with one area light and final gather with 3 bounces, RPE of 128 and SBR of 32 in the GI panel, perspective camera, AA setting of 5, Reconstruction Filter: classic and Sampling Pattern: Classic, Adaptive Sampling turned on and a threshold of 0.015 (I found my normal threshold of 0.035 would still show a grainy edge). I've aimed the Focal Distance of the Depth of Field at 20m, 18 m the other side of the object in the attached, F-Stop is default 4.0, and this is the result.

Your initial image looks scarily as though there's no AA going on - that's why I'm curious as to your scene set up to get DoF that bad.

The above is on LW64 running the final 9.6 release - not sure if that makes a difference. Render time was 1m32s on an 8-core.

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 08:38 AM
There was a moment in the past when I decided not to use Lightwave´s or any other 3D-application´s built in Post Production attempts at all!
That's the difference though. DoF in LW is not a post filter, and thus doesn't work as one either.
It doesn't have the limitations of one, nor the speed.


I started this thread after my first attempt in EIGHT years, to give Lightwave´s DOF and AA another chance to show off what it could do! I admit I have to chose post since it´s not an affordable to do it "your way"!
That's the nice thing though, you have a choice. I've done it both ways, depending on the task.
And to add a perspective to it, I was extremely happy to see both the new PRMBlur and the new DoF, and that's after using LW for 17 straight years.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 02:11 PM
I don´t wanna fool around with naive replies but I just had to...

Since Lightwave´s got such a slow render engine connected to the DOF process I guess that 17 years is a reasonable time to wait for a perfect image to be rendered!

:D


That's the difference though. DoF in LW is not a post filter, and thus doesn't work as one either. It doesn't have the limitations of one, nor the speed.

That's the nice thing though, you have a choice. I've done it both ways, depending on the task. And to add a perspective to it, I was extremely happy to see both the new PRMBlur and the new DoF, and that's after using LW for 17 straight years.

Cheers,
Mike

Cageman
01-26-2009, 02:23 PM
To get decent dof with any of the new cameras:

AA: 5
Adaptive sampling: 0.03
Oversample: 0.7

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 02:28 PM
My first shot was just a rough render without any AA added or any other twisting and tweaking to make the image look any better than it is with the default settings!

Here are som test shots of the result when I tried different settings!


Hi Jaxtone, I'm just curious if your scene is radiosity lit?

I've just loaded up a model, lit it with one area light and final gather with 3 bounces, RPE of 128 and SBR of 32 in the GI panel, perspective camera, AA setting of 5, Reconstruction Filter: classic and Sampling Pattern: Classic, Adaptive Sampling turned on and a threshold of 0.015 (I found my normal threshold of 0.035 would still show a grainy edge). I've aimed the Focal Distance of the Depth of Field at 20m, 18 m the other side of the object in the attached, F-Stop is default 4.0, and this is the result.

Your initial image looks scarily as though there's no AA going on - that's why I'm curious as to your scene set up to get DoF that bad.

The above is on LW64 running the final 9.6 release - not sure if that makes a difference. Render time was 1m32s on an 8-core.

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 02:32 PM
Here are som test shots of the result when I tried different settings!
Why not try adaptive sampling, as was mentioned ... almost in every other post in this thread?

Cheers,
Mike

kopperdrake
01-26-2009, 02:39 PM
Yup - I've found I've never really had to go above AA of 5 - go with the Adaptive Sampling to grind those gritty bits down. As Cageman said, a bit of oversampling might help speed the process up too - AA of 30 is a bit scary.

Cageman
01-26-2009, 02:59 PM
jaxtone,

I'm in the process of making some testrenders with screenshots. Stay tuned...

Cageman
01-26-2009, 03:18 PM
Ok..some testrenders with a very OLD model I found on my harddrive. *lol*

For each testrender I also did a screenshot of the render status window, that shows that using DOF comapared to not using DOF doesn't really add that much more rendertime, especially if used with Adaptive Sampling and Oversample. In extreme cases (where things are going to be really blurred) you may have to go lower on the Adaptive Sampling (like 0.01). But that's usually only visible when doing stills. Add motionblur and camera motion to the mix, and be surprised of how much you actually can get away with. If that doesn't look good enough, dial down the AS to something like 0.01 and have a look. It will take longer to render, but it will look really nice!

Also, bare in mind that the new DOF and especially the PRMBlur will add alot of rendertime when used in scenes with many objects. In such cases, breaking up the scene into several "layers" would greately benefit the rendertimes. Yes, you have more scenes to render, but totaly they actually render faster compared to rendering everything in camera at once.

EDIT: The second image is rendered without DOF. Compare the rendertimes between the two.

Cageman
01-26-2009, 03:19 PM
...and some more...

EDIT: The second image is rendered without DOF. Compare the rendertimes.

:)

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 05:09 PM
I have tried with different settings in Adaptive Sampling as well as without any Adaptive Sampling at all!


Why not try adaptive sampling, as was mentioned ... almost in every other post in this thread?

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-26-2009, 05:30 PM
I´ve tried with the settings you mentioned... but it seems like as soon as I decrease the value of the AA to reach 5, the rendered image´s pixels seems to be very jagged!

A question! Since I added Global Illumination to the render process it seems to slow the process down even more! How about add some Global Illumination to your scenes to see if there´s a difference in render times!


Ok..some testrenders with a very OLD model I found on my harddrive. *lol*

For each testrender I also did a screenshot of the render status window, that shows that using DOF comapared to not using DOF doesn't really add that much more rendertime, especially if used with Adaptive Sampling and Oversample. In extreme cases (where things are going to be really blurred) you may have to go lower on the Adaptive Sampling (like 0.01). But that's usually only visible when doing stills. Add motionblur and camera motion to the mix, and be surprised of how much you actually can get away with. If that doesn't look good enough, dial down the AS to something like 0.01 and have a look. It will take longer to render, but it will look really nice!

Also, bare in mind that the new DOF and especially the PRMBlur will add alot of rendertime when used in scenes with many objects. In such cases, breaking up the scene into several "layers" would greately benefit the rendertimes. Yes, you have more scenes to render, but totaly they actually render faster compared to rendering everything in camera at once.

EDIT: The second image is rendered without DOF. Compare the rendertimes between the two.

Lightwolf
01-26-2009, 05:36 PM
I´ve tried with the settings you mentioned... but it seems like as soon as I decrease the value of the AA to reach 5, the rendered image´s pixels seems to be very jagged!

Try the Classic Reconstruction Filter as well as the Fixed Sampling Pattern.

Cheers
Mike

Cageman
01-27-2009, 01:13 AM
A question! Since I added Global Illumination to the render process it seems to slow the process down even more!

Using another testscene...

Yes.... GI+DOF adds a hell of alot more rendertime combined when compared to any of them used not in combination with eachother. A scene that took 4m 50s without GI (but dof enabled), took 14m 50s when GI (Final Gather) was enabled (same aa/as/dof settings used).

DOF+GI seems to not be a good combo at the moment.

EDIT:
Wow... how can I be so stupid. :) *lol* I forgot to compare to the GI render without DOF.... so... this scene, without DOF, but with GI takes 12m 18s, so... in this case DOF adds about 2 minutes to the rendertime.

jaxtone
01-27-2009, 03:40 AM
DOF+GI seems to not be a good combo at the moment.

Wolf and Cage, here´s a riddle I can´t solve without the excellent superbrains of yours!

Since GI and DOF is such a bad combo, what are the alternatives!

My first choice is of course to keep GI since the rendered result is convincing!

Secondly it would be nice to find a way, (even if it only is from time to time), to use the built in DOF in Lightwave, without killing my customer contract with extreme render times.

But what are the alternatives to use similar solutions to GI and DOF?

Lightwolf
01-27-2009, 03:45 AM
Since GI and DOF is such a bad combo, what are the alternatives!

Well, it doesn't seem to be, as Cagemans test only shows a render time increase of 1m30s on a 12m render... which is what, a 12% hit in render time due to the Dof.

Having said that, I haven't used GI in an animation yet, I tend to have to much animation going on to be able to render a clean solution in little time.

Cheers,
Mike

jaxtone
01-27-2009, 03:46 AM
I changed from Classic to Fixed last night!

Couldn´t see any big changes in the procedure... It seemed like it speeded up the process 5-10% on the test renders, but since I didn´t do a benchmarking in seconds on the whole scene I cannot judge yet!

Thanks!


Try the Classic Reconstruction Filter as well as the Fixed Sampling Pattern.

Cheers
Mike

Lightwolf
01-27-2009, 03:54 AM
I changed from Classic to Fixed last night!

Couldn´t see any big changes in the procedure... It seemed like it speeded up the process 5-10% on the test renders, but since I didn´t do a benchmarking in seconds on the whole scene I cannot judge yet!

It should make a slight difference on the AA of straight edges.

Cheers,
Mike

Thomas M.
01-27-2009, 04:21 AM
Jaxtone, you should try to get a tutorial on how the renderer and it settings work. There's a sticky post about the AA settings. This should help you to get an understanding what to do to achieve the quality you want. And Dof isn't for free, so the render times going through the roof are unfortunately the drawbacks you have to deal with. PS lens blur might be an alternative for you.

caesar
01-27-2009, 05:27 AM
Well, my experience with DoF and PRMB is that both are excelent, along with the OGl preview. Both add little to render, the only increase in time is about AA needed.
Jaxtone, just try the settings cageman said: AA=5, AS=0.03 AND OS=0.7 (equal old enhanced AA). You can try Gaussian instead of classic (but with OS= 0.7 may be too blurred)
And you shouls ALWAYS use AS. Just take a quick look at the LW manuals, webhelp.
PS - there is NO default settings.....

jaxtone
01-27-2009, 06:10 AM
Thomas!

What a great article, tutorial, technical lesson. Thanks for adding some pics to the content, thats a great and pedagogical bonus that makes you wanna read more about it. This is unfortunally something I have to get into the depth of after this project is done... What a mess!

Thanks again for your expertise!

J


Jaxtone, you should try to get a tutorial on how the renderer and it settings work. There's a sticky post about the AA settings. This should help you to get an understanding what to do to achieve the quality you want. And Dof isn't for free, so the render times going through the roof are unfortunately the drawbacks you have to deal with. PS lens blur might be an alternative for you.

jaxtone
01-27-2009, 06:21 AM
Thanks for the information but the render times when you add GI and DOF kills the project of mine to effecive to be useful! As said earlier this is not the optimal solution if you´re counting seconds!

Ceasar! I don´t wanna argue about this but what are the already settled settings mentioned as when you open a program, plugin or application:

Default settings!

That´s at least what I have learned since I had my first sexual experience with a computer in the mid 80´s! :D

Do you possibly have any new and fresh name suggestions on these I would really appreciate your ambitions. This could maybe hot up my traditionally sex acts with my computers a little bit! :beerchug:

Smack my "disks" up!

J


Well, my experience with DoF and PRMB is that both are excelent, along with the OGl preview. Both add little to render, the only increase in time is about AA needed.
Jaxtone, just try the settings cageman said: AA=5, AS=0.03 AND OS=0.7 (equal old enhanced AA). You can try Gaussian instead of classic (but with OS= 0.7 may be too blurred)
And you shouls ALWAYS use AS. Just take a quick look at the LW manuals, webhelp.
PS - there is NO default settings.....

caesar
01-27-2009, 07:38 AM
Default settings!

That´s at least what I have learned since I had my first sexual experience with a computer in the mid 80´s! :D

Do you possibly have any new and fresh name suggestions on these I would really appreciate your ambitions. This could maybe hot up my traditionally sex acts with my computers a little bit! :beerchug:

Smack my "disks" up!

J

Yeah, you´re right about the "default settings" concept, but I think it dont apply to a renderer. Maybe in Vue, that you have render presets (low, high, broadcast, etc). The camera settings in LW are all "OFF" by default, so every render but a test render wil be a failure. But if you´re having relations with your computer, man that would be the problem...LOL
See ya dude, good luck

Cageman
01-27-2009, 09:28 AM
On the note of Presets.... it would be great to be able to store Camera-settings as presets (just like you do with surfaces or hypervoxels).