Stereoscopic rendering not working.

icon kid

icon kid
Even though I'm using what is now the lowly Lightwave 9.2 I should still be able to render anaglyph renderings with it but it's not working for me. Unlike LW 2020, there is only a single setting in 9.2 -- the 'eye separation.' When Stereoscopic Camera is activated it renders a single image the same as when it's not activated, instead of rendering an A & B image. What am I missing about this function?
 

jwiede

Electron wrangler
Why are you using 9.2? You should at least have access to 9.3.3 (the last v9 revision released), try again with that revision? It did fix a bunch of 9.2 bugs, IIRC.
 

Sensei

TrueArt Support
In LW 2015.x, the oldest I have here installed, when we render using F9, there are created two image buffers which you can switch in Image Viewer.
After using F10, there are created files which have _L and _R suffixes appended to file name.
 

lardbros

Not so newbie member
I'd hazard a guess, but it was a loooong time ago I used v9.

If you're doing an F9 render, it may require you to press enter after it has completed the first frame, which will then render the next frame, and then composite it together after it has completed those.
 

slacer

Member
Why are you using 9.2? You should at least have access to 9.3.3 (the last v9 revision released), try again with that revision? It did fix a bunch of 9.2 bugs, IIRC.
There is even a V9.6.1 for Windows and Mac in my accounts download section available.
 
Last edited:

slacer

Member
Even though I'm using what is now the lowly Lightwave 9.2 I should still be able to render anaglyph renderings with it but it's not working for me. Unlike LW 2020, there is only a single setting in 9.2 -- the 'eye separation.' When Stereoscopic Camera is activated it renders a single image the same as when it's not activated, instead of rendering an A & B image. What am I missing about this function?
From the v9 manual:
F9 renders will not show the two images that make up the stereogram, you will have to use the F10 render and save your images to be able to get both sides of the perspective — the F9 render just gives you the left eye. When rendering using the Stereoscopic rendering function you will get two images for each frame of your animation suffixed with either an L or R for Left and Right eye images respectively
 

icon kid

icon kid
Thank you all.

lardbros: Some progress with your suggestion of doing an F10 render instead of F9. It gave me two images this time, however, the only difference between them is that the second image was rotated clockwise (banked) approximately 10 degrees. That's totally weird. Also, there are no red and blue "ghosts" in either image that you would expect to see in an anaglyph. See the screen shot of my images below (at my Web site). Several of you asked "Why are you using 9.2? -- because I'm a bum.

1L-1R.png
 

lardbros

Not so newbie member
If you go to image processing, is it doing the anaglyph compositing of the images?
If you press Ctrl F8 (I think) is there a post processing filter called APPLY anaglyph or something similar?
It seems to be rendering the two eyes properly, but not applying the anaglyph effect afterwards
 

raymondtrace

Founding member
...Several of you asked "Why are you using 9.2? -- because I'm a bum.
I'm not sure what "bum" means. Is "bum" another name for pirate? There were people asking this of you in 2009!

You should install the most recent release available to you prior to seeking support for all these issues over the years. There is a good chance that LW9.6 may have solved some of these issues. You can still keep your 9.2 release installed if there's some unusual plugin compatibility that must be maintained. Many of us have multiple LW versions installed.
 

icon kid

icon kid
If you go to image processing, is it doing the anaglyph compositing of the images?
If you press Ctrl F8 (I think) is there a post processing filter called APPLY anaglyph or something similar?
It seems to be rendering the two eyes properly, but not applying the anaglyph effect afterwards
Thank you lardbros -- PROGRESS MADE!
You mentioned "Analog Stereo Compose" which did nothinrotate.gifrotate.gif
rotate.gif
rotate.gif
g but I also tried "Analog Stereo Simulate" which did the trick. Now I see the red and blue overlaps in a single composited image. I can hardly wait to get a pair of anaglyph glasses to see how this looks in them. It seems that the second (right eye image) can be discarded after the two have been composited into one because each one has all the 'glyphs' needed for 3D perception. Besides that, the second image has the camera oddly banked. This issue should be moot since I won't need second images but it would still be an academic question as to why the camera banks at all. By eye I judged it to be 10 degrees but I just did a careful measurement and it turns out to be exactly 6.5 degrees clockwise rotation. For good measure I've attached a 2-frame GIF animation which shows without a doubt that the difference between the left and right generated images has nothing to do with red/blue separation and is a result of a banking camera angle. (If the animation becomes annoying you should be able to freeze it by pressing the Esc key.)
2-simulate.png
rotate.gif
rotate.gif
 

lardbros

Not so newbie member
I was wondering if the "banking" of the camera might just be the second eye's point of view.
If the distance is quite large, then couldn't the field of view change the perspective a bit?

What is your interoccular distance?
 

icon kid

icon kid
I was wondering if the "banking" of the camera might just be the second eye's point of view.
If the distance is quite large, then couldn't the field of view change the perspective a bit?

What is your interoccular distance?
I like your thought process but, in this case, the camera parameters wouldn't cause 'apparent' camera rotation. According to an online chart I just looked at "Immediate field of view" is 70 degrees wide; "Preferred field of view" (what you can see clearly and fully without having to rotate your eyes and, presumably without creating any perceived curvature or tilting) is 30 degrees wide. In my rendering the distance between the camera to the closest part of the object is 20 feet and the camera angle is 28 degrees, slightly smaller the the 'Preferred' angle as described above.
 
I have a cracked version of Blender that I'm toyed with a few times but I found it frustrating just to learn, even though the renders I've seen other artists do look even better than Lightwave. It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
Bro, Blender is free. There is a new release by the way.
https://www.blender.org/

But I heartily agree with the "old dog new tricks" statement.
I keep wanting to learn Blender but get frustrated and go back to LW because it's easier to use something I already know.

The "easy" thing to do and the "right" thing to do are seldom the SAME thing.
 

raymondtrace

Founding member

lardbros

Not so newbie member
I appreciate your defense of criminality but this particular act of piracy has not led to any of the outcomes you hope for. Icon kid has been using the same old pirated version for over a decade...at the expense of icon kid missing many bug fixes and to our expense to dig into our dusty minds to recall how things worked a long time ago. I'm not stopping anybody from enabling this foolishness but one would imagine that icon kid could at least meet his criminal enablers half way by using a modern crack.
I'm not particularly defending it... and using cracked tools for over a decade seems a bit unfair on the vendors really. But ah well... using Blender is a much smarter option than using 15 year old LightWave :)
 

Axis3d

Lightwave User Since 1990
Thank you lardbros -- PROGRESS MADE!
You mentioned "Analog Stereo Compose" which did nothinView attachment 150356View attachment 150356View attachment 150356View attachment 150356g but I also tried "Analog Stereo Simulate" which did the trick. Now I see the red and blue overlaps in a single composited image. I can hardly wait to get a pair of anaglyph glasses to see how this looks in them. It seems that the second (right eye image) can be discarded after the two have been composited into one because each one has all the 'glyphs' needed for 3D perception. Besides that, the second image has the camera oddly banked. This issue should be moot since I won't need second images but it would still be an academic question as to why the camera banks at all. By eye I judged it to be 10 degrees but I just did a careful measurement and it turns out to be exactly 6.5 degrees clockwise rotation. For good measure I've attached a 2-frame GIF animation which shows without a doubt that the difference between the left and right generated images has nothing to do with red/blue separation and is a result of a banking camera angle. (If the animation becomes annoying you should be able to freeze it by pressing the Esc key.)View attachment 150355View attachment 150356View attachment 150356
I've been doing a lot of stereoscopic medical work in LW the past couple of years. Generally, you'll want to use your anaglyph glasses while you are setting up your shots so that you will render out a good stereo separation in the end. If you only look at your stereo effect after you've rendered out everything, you might not like what you did. Then you'll be rendering again.

Generally, setting a convergence point in your scene, I've found, gives a much more pleasing depth to the scene. You just have to make sure things aren't 'breaking the frame' edges. Think of your 3D scene as a box, or diorama, where everything is happening inside the box. The open end of the box is where you are looking into your scene. The convergence point should be set at the opening of the box (in general). This is just a rough guideline and may need adjusting per shot. Then, you would adjust your Eye Separation to give enough depth or roundness to the objects in your scene.

Here's a couple of anaglyph stills from some projects just as an example.



As far as the rotated bank issue that I'm seeing in your renders, I'm not exactly sure what's going on there. It could be, if you are using a convergence point, that the cameras are getting some kind of gimbal lock or something. I haven't run into this issue yet. Still trying to replicate it.


Anaglyph_03.jpg

Anaglyph_01.jpg
 

Axis3d

Lightwave User Since 1990
I'm not particularly defending it... and using cracked tools for over a decade seems a bit unfair on the vendors really. But ah well... using Blender is a much smarter option than using 15 year old LightWave :)
And also, just to mention, as a 30 year user of LW, I’ve tried using Blender to do my VR360 and VR cylindrical renders but the EVEE renderer is currently not up to that. My main interest in Blender is the EVEE renderer. I’m sure it will catch up with LW eventually in this regard, but not yet. The Cycles renderer can do VR360 cylindrical, but the render times for a comparable scene in LW are too long. LW just has a simple system for doing this kind of work.

That said, I’m using Blender in bits here and there for some modeling that would be more difficult in LW. Using the OD tools to copy and paste models between the two apps makes that a breeze.
 

lardbros

Not so newbie member
Nice shots there Axis3d! :)

I'm still using LightWave for most things, and only dip into Blender here and there. Definitely not poo-pooing LightWave at all, the more I'm forced to use 3ds Max at work, the more I fall in love with LightWave :)
3ds Max is absolutely terrible and is getting worse.
Aaaanyway, back on topic, LightWave is great at these stereo gigs, I've only done a few in my time and LightWave makes it so easy to set up and get a render out.
360 degree renders are also sooo easy in LightWave.

Did a 360 render with GI using a model of the Natural History Museum. It was a test at home comparing Arnold in 3ds Max, to LightWave and rendering GI.
LightWave's renderer won by quite a margin and was cleaner in less time.

 

Axis3d

Lightwave User Since 1990
Nice shots there Axis3d! :)

I'm still using LightWave for most things, and only dip into Blender here and there. Definitely not poo-pooing LightWave at all, the more I'm forced to use 3ds Max at work, the more I fall in love with LightWave :)
3ds Max is absolutely terrible and is getting worse.
Aaaanyway, back on topic, LightWave is great at these stereo gigs, I've only done a few in my time and LightWave makes it so easy to set up and get a render out.
360 degree renders are also sooo easy in LightWave.

Did a 360 render with GI using a model of the Natural History Museum. It was a test at home comparing Arnold in 3ds Max, to LightWave and rendering GI.
LightWave's renderer won by quite a margin and was cleaner in less time.

Thanks, Lardbros -

Normally, the anaglyph stereoscopic format is not required for the work that I do. It is just the lowest common denominator when being able to view stereoscopic (but it also looks the worst). Mostly, my renders are for a cylindrical theater format that is 8000 x 2000 - stereoscopic. The renders are Left-over-Right and are viewed with polarized glasses instead. Then VR360, like the format you did a test with. That was a neat scene and render, by the way.

The top image in my original post was actually done in After Effects using Element 3D. I did the models and any complex animation in LW, then exported .OBJ sequences for use in Element 3D. That was a one-off. I've done all my work in LW from that point on. Just easier to do with the different stereoscopic formats. But, there is a great stereoscopic workflow in AE if you are just working at HD 1080.

It seems like there is no single 3D app that can do everything that you want anymore. There's lots to choose from now, but definitely not one-size-fits-all. That sucks about 3ds Max. I tried 3d Studio many years ago (before they re-wrote to 3ds Max). Back then, the renderer just looked like crap and very soft. I really liked a lot of the features of the app, but at the end of the day, the final rendered image is what sold me on LW. I have a friend who is a Modo user who's app is slowly getting worse from neglect and has similar complaints as the rest of us. It's just a matter of time before the 3D field of apps gets reduced even further. I just wish LW didn't feel like it was on the chopping block.
 
Top Bottom