Show your LW2018 Test Renders

[jay3d]

A little something

 

[lw_blender]

A little something

View attachment 140562
View attachment 140563
View attachment 140564

Superb! :thumbsup:

 

[djwaterman]

I spent the last two days testing 2018 again, using an old scene, converting everything to principled shaders and using an environment light. This renderer still has major issues dealing with anti aliasing in high contrast areas and noise in under lit areas, not that noticeable here as I fixed it in post. Second image was white balanced to remove the sunset tones and keep the white car more white.



Still too slow for my liking.

 

[Marander]

I spent the last two days testing 2018 again, using an old scene, converting everything to principled shaders and using an environment light.

Beautiful images, very well done! Great lighting.

I'm not so convinced with the LW2018 metallic / conductor surfaces / shaders. And I like your old renders a tiny bit more then the new ones in some parts. Nevertheless the best LW2018 renders so far for me.

 

[Axis3d]

I spent the last two days testing 2018 again, using an old scene, converting everything to principled shaders and using an environment light. This renderer still has major issues dealing with anti aliasing in high contrast areas and noise in under lit areas, not that noticeable here as I fixed it in post. Second image was white balanced to remove the sunset tones and keep the white car more white.

View attachment 140585View attachment 140586


Still too slow for my liking.

Your renders look excellent. I'm not sure how these compare to your previous LW2015 renders of the same renders, but, in general, I feel like the 2018 renders overall have a quality that couldn't be met with the 2015 renderer. I notice that in my own renders also. I am still getting the hang of the new workflow. I feel like there is a trade off with slightly longer render times (and dealing with noise), but the overall quality looks better to me.

 

[rustythe1]

its annoying, i work in lightwave all day every day, but cant show anything for it, so i managed to spend half a day building a spinner, i spent no time on the environment so that could do with an upgrade, but the 3Dcoat textures just came straight through when exporting to LWO, just changed to principle plug and go,

 

[Asticles]

Asticles thank you for reply tried all the these. Still the same. Looks like it did not have any samples.
Please note that with BSDF material 100 percent transparency the same, but when I set it to 85 percent its goes away.
p.s. My apologies I also asked about this issue in this thread http://forums.newtek.com/showthread...arency-actually-working&p=1539879#post1539879

Don't worry, make a bug report and include only the glass, just in case.

 

[luzlight]

I spent the last two days testing 2018 again, using an old scene, converting everything to principled shaders and using an environment light. This renderer still has major issues dealing with anti aliasing in high contrast areas and noise in under lit areas, not that noticeable here as I fixed it in post. Second image was white balanced to remove the sunset tones and keep the white car more white.

View attachment 140585View attachment 140586

Still too slow for my liking.

Those renders look really really nice.

 

[Axis3d]

its annoying, i work in lightwave all day every day, but cant show anything for it, so i managed to spend half a day building a spinner, i spent no time on the environment so that could do with an upgrade, but the 3Dcoat textures just came straight through when exporting to LWO, just changed to principle plug and go,
View attachment 140587View attachment 140589View attachment 140588View attachment 140590View attachment 140591View attachment 140592View attachment 140593View attachment 140594View attachment 140595

Well, that is a pretty amazing spinner for half a day of work. The texturing is great also. It seems to render quite nicely in 2018.

 

[djwaterman]

Yeah, the spinner is looking good. I think the illuminated lights are examples of things that would've been very hard to pull off in previous versions of LW, here they are convincing.

 

[lw_blender]

I spent the last two days testing 2018 again, using an old scene, converting everything to principled shaders and using an environment light. This renderer still has major issues dealing with anti aliasing in high contrast areas and noise in under lit areas, not that noticeable here as I fixed it in post. Second image was white balanced to remove the sunset tones and keep the white car more white.

View attachment 140585View attachment 140586

Still too slow for my liking.

Cool renders, as always, well done! :thumbsup:
I'm with Marander on this one and think your "old" renders with 2015 (or was it 11.x ?) looked as good as those ones, if not better, so i'm not convinced you gained that much with 2018.
Except perhaps on render times?
Or ease of use?

Anyway the scene is probably too "light" (not in term of modeling or shaders quality, more of the complexity of the scene itself...) to judge if 2018 would shine in a much more complex scene.

 

[Gungho3D]

I spent the last two days testing 2018 again, using an old scene, converting everything to principled shaders and using an environment light. This renderer still has major issues dealing with anti aliasing in high contrast areas and noise in under lit areas, not that noticeable here as I fixed it in post. Second image was white balanced to remove the sunset tones and keep the white car more white.

Still too slow for my liking.

DJ, these two renders are nothing short of superb.

Yeah yeah I know: down in the 3rd tire tread from the left, the grains of sand aren't quite popping as much as they should be. And why oh why can't it all just render in three minutes, for crying out loud! ...

Outstanding renders, not bad for "two days testing". Have you bought into LW 2018 or are you still running the demo?

 

[rustythe1]

well you say that "cant render in 3 mins", but if i render my spinner with illuminous polys instead of the 22 spherical lights i have in my scene at 1080p, it renders in 2!

with the lights, its not far off 3, and this is a fairly close full on shot, with the camera further away a lot less, with no lights turned on its only about 30 seconds

i would have thought with clean smooth surfaces, if its set up right he should be able to render his car even faster as there is a lot more grime and noise going on in mine,

 

[inakito]

This is some look dev I did some years ago testing Lightwave 2018. I wanted to test the new lighting, shading, and volumetrics.

The terrain is generated using displacements on different primitives.

Definetly an interested render and shading improovement.

 

[prometheus]

This is some look dev I did some years ago testing Lightwave 2018. I wanted to test the new lighting, shading, and volumetrics.

The terrain is generated using displacements on different primitives.

Definetly an interested render and shading improovement.


View attachment 151150

Inakito,

In all friendlyness, I would suggest that you post your images a bit larger.
It´s very hard to analyze the images when they are that small.

 

[inakito]

Inakito,

In all friendlyness, I would suggest that you post your images a bit larger.
It´s very hard to analyze the images when they are that small.

Was it that small? Otherwise I´ll try finding another higher

 

[raymondtrace]

The size is fine. There are also plenty of good reasons not to post high resolution images here. (bandwidth, protecting intellectual property, etc)

 

[prometheus]

The size is fine. There are also plenty of good reasons not to post high resolution images here. (bandwidth, protecting intellectual property, etc)

Can´t agree, if anyone is supposed to analyse the detail in there, it´s not doable in a decent way..this is an image that has 5 smaller images within it..split by further pixel framing around it, it´s unnecessary.

Better to post those indivlidually at at least double the resolution
As for protecting it, just watermark it/copyright it.

A double resolution wouldn´t be useful for much anyway, except for actually seing the details better.

Also, try flickr..you just have to choose share and copy the link and paste it directly in to the post message, not by the media or image attachments and it will work fine..
Like below, takes you to flickr for the original image.


https://flic.kr/p/2kW8Ger

pasting by image attachment, try share and choose BBCode and copy that in to link attachment, left to the image icon, like this...

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2kW8Ger] ScreenShot 03-11-21 at 02.51.26 PM by Michael Ivarsson, on Flickr[/URL]


To see the image in full size, do not click on it directly, use right klick on the image above and open (image not link) in new tab/browser window.

this image belongs to me, the datasource can be seen when produced, no watermark needed, nor copyrighting label necessary..property is there Automaticly once created.
Though in this case I do not mind people sharing, using it under pretention it is some others would of course be wrong.

 

[prometheus]

Was it that small? Otherwise I´ll try finding another higher

Almost there, but still not enough, elevate it a bit more.
A size of 300-500 KB should be enough for a full hd screensize, and not overloading bandwidth unreasonable.
Watermark it if necessary.

 

[inakito]

Ahahahahaha funny enought it is the same image I uploaded before. Only difference is that I uploaded from mobile phone and this time I did it from the computer. In any case I'll upload another version as soon I got my computer back to live, as it is where I do keep most of that stuff :/