Fstorm render

[peteristrate]

What if you bypass adding the gamma node, but instead, enable the viewport lut (Fusion View Lut), then edit it an set it the Color Gamma to 2.2. Essentially the same thing, but just give it a test.
Now add the lut node with the cube file from the vfb (basically skipping the gamma node)

Hi Morne.
I did exactly that and... guess what ? You were right!

That's very strange though. Both the Gamut node and the Fusion-viewer-built-in-Gamut, are exactly the same, but they behave differently.

I'll dig deeper into that, I'm reading some things now. Do you use Fusion as well ?

[vlado]

Has anyone created a LUT file that mimics what FStorm is doing by default? If FStorm is applying some kind of curve or color correction that is liked, can't we just create a LUT file to match it?

Attached is a .bcurve file for the V-Ray VFB curve control and .cube file for the LUT control (for the LUT, please turn off the "Convert to Log Space" option.

The curve is more accurate, although I'm still doing some adjustments there for the darker colors.

Best regards,
Vlado

[dlparisi]

Why are you guys adding a gamma node? Just enable Fusion's viewport LUT and edit it to 2.2

Because I didn't know about it! I don't want to make this a fusion thread but what do you do when you need to output composites?

[peteristrate]

It seems to work just fine for me but only if you reverse the Gamma and LUT nodes. I assume the LUT has to be applied to the linear image.

Yep, that was the problem !!
I actually comp my other renders this way. It's just when I did this test that I swapped the nodes without realising it.

[Morne]

Hi Morne.
I did exactly that and... guess what ? You were right!

That's very strange though. Both the Gamut node and the Fusion-viewer-built-in-Gamut, are exactly the same, but they behave differently.

I'll dig deeper into that, I'm reading some things now. Do you use Fusion as well ?

I don't use it as often as I'd like to, but slowly moving my workflow over to it.
For those that's following Fusion, here's some screenshots to better understand what I was saying:

Because I didn't know about it! I don't want to make this a fusion thread but what do you do when you need to output composites?

In your saver node, in the export tab, set your output gamma space to sRGB and tick Apply curve. Not sure if it's the "correct" way, since the output jpg is slightly more saturated as the one in the LUT viewport



Back on topic:
So what's happening with the legal issues? Is Fstorm carrying on or dead in the water?

[dlparisi]

Thanks Morne.

[peteristrate]

I don't use it as often as I'd like to, but slowly moving my workflow over to it.
For those that's following Fusion, here're some screenshots to better understand what I was saying:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]32054[/ATTACH]

In regards to the screenshot you posted, you can also go for Gamut view LUT which is the same as what you did, and which is exactly the same with the Gamut node.

Follow this guy here. He seems to be a Fusion guru.
1. http://www.comp-fu.com/?s=http%3A%2F...in-fusion-part (option 3 in the blog post applies to us = CGI linear workflow)
2. http://www.comp-fu.com/2012/02/linea...low-in-fusion/
3. http://www.comp-fu.com/2012/03/linea...fusion-part-2/

In your saver node, in the export tab, set your output gamma space to sRGB and tick Apply curve. Not sure if it's the "correct" way, since the output jpg is slightly more saturated as the one in the LUT viewport

Both ways are correct, but when you have a complex composition, you need to add gamma in the composition as a node since you might want to add different corrections to your composition after the gamma node.
It's also easier to follow it since you can see where it is and what role it plays in your composition: it's more tangible.
In my compositions, gamma node comes quite early, right after doing mask corrections on my image(if the client needs some prouducts colour adjusted) and after I add my LUT. Only then I add other nodes with different effects like glows, chromattic aberration, etc. And then the SAVE node. I do not add gamma right before the SAVE node.
I did some tests and came to the conclusion that glows, chromattic aberration, etc. look better(or correct) if added on the tonemapped image, and not on the linear image.

Back on topic:
So what's happening with the legal issues? Is Fstorm carrying on or dead in the water?

Not sure, but I wouldn't transform this topic into a Fstorm lawsuit.
Go join Fstorm and Octane facebook groups and you'll see hundreds of comments on this topic.
The point is that nothing is sure, all are suppositions, untill the court will rule something out... and that will be later. And, even then, they can't do anything to Fstorm developer since he won't be extradited if found guilty(he lives in Russia, if i'm not wrong). They can only forbid other studios from using Fstorm and Fstorm will remain a tool used by a few hobbists in Russia and China where nobody gives a damn about pirated software. But nobody knows if he copied things or not, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
That's all. So, let's skip the drama

[peteristrate]

Don't make wrong assumptions that your workflow matches the one from other artists. I often switch to static mode with Vray Displacement modifier, because I have tons of RAM to use. That way the displacement is rendering much quicker. To be honest I am quite glad that I can decide to look under the hood of Vray or to drive it in auto-mode.

I prefer advanced things as well, but some things might still be unnecessary.
The thing you mentioned might be necessary, fair enough.
Those were just quick assumptions I've made on the spot, I didn't give them a well thought, so don't take things literally.
I'm only saying what seems unnecessary for me, and Vlado and the teams can only look around and get an idea of what users use / need / request, then remove what is not used by anybody.

[Sbrusse]

Yeah, although I like the idea of cleaning out what's not supported, I still think having all those settings are relevant for those who does use them, and I could argue of using nearly each of those you pointed out, from time to time.
But getting what's not supported out of the UI would be great as it would avoid confusion.

Getting back to FStorm topic, what are your thoughts on getting a build in real time bloom glare lens flare effect in Vray Vlado?

[joconnell]

Yeah, although I like the idea of cleaning out what's not supported, I still think having all those settings are relevant for those who does use them, and I could argue of using nearly each of those you pointed out, from time to time.
But getting what's not supported out of the UI would be great as it would avoid confusion.

It's quite tough alright - Autodesk would love to throw out edit mesh and edit poly in favour of a newer method as the swapping between mesh and poly majorly slows down calculations and redraw but there's still people actively using them and there's old scenes to be supported. They'd have to draw a line in the sand and say "from this point, your scenes are no longer supported" and there'd be utter uproar

I'm going to be working on a project soon where I'm going to be heavily using cached Irmap and LC because it makes total sense. You're right that the unfortunate price to having options is a bit more clutter.

[mitviz]

Well i think the option to have expert n normal hidden was a good way to simplify the ui n maybe the best way so far, hide more there if needed maybe which probably satisfies everyone

[Sbrusse]

We will never get this topic back to the initial purpose

[dean_dmoo]

I'll give it a go then....

A very brief impression of my first 5min experience to see what all the fuss is about.

Tried Fstorm earlier. Ive never really bothered with RT as the scenes I work on are nearly always too big anyway. So for me they are pretty much the same in that respect. Anyhow, opened the chicago loft by BBB, converted and hit render. Didnt work straight away, but a couple of edits got it moving. Huge glare, dramatic image. What I liked was that I could see what was happening, mostly down to the bar at the top of the renderframe, counter for samples, remaining time to cleanup, noise value. Even though initially not much was happening on screen you could see it was doing something, even when my renderframe was staying black.

Tried to change some materials but crashed out of max twice. So opened the scene again to use vrayRT to see how it compares. Scene rendered how it should and I could see file loading and LC progress but once it started rendering there was no feedback
besides the actual image cleaning up. Now had to zoom in and really look to see that it was actually doing anything as at one point I reallu wondered whether it has stopped working.

For me, as pretty much a new user for both, that was the biggest UI difference I saw and what I liked with FStorm. That you could see a countdown of some kind whilst rendering, whereas with RT it was blank. Maybe it was down to settings that I couldnt see that, so let me know. But as a user, I like seeing that kind of feedback, similar to how you see passes in progressive.

[vlado]

For me, as pretty much a new user for both, that was the biggest UI difference I saw and what I liked with FStorm. That you could see a countdown of some kind whilst rendering, whereas with RT it was blank. Maybe it was down to settings that I couldnt see that, so let me know. But as a user, I like seeing that kind of feedback, similar to how you see passes in progressive.

I don't know if it's good or bad that it's the only difference There is an option in V-Ray RT called "Show statistics" that would overlay some information in the VFB, like noise level reached, GPU load etc - see attachments.

Best regards,
Vlado

[peteristrate]

I don't know if it's good or bad that it's the only difference There is an option in V-Ray RT called "Show statistics" that would overlay some information in the VFB, like noise level reached, GPU load etc - see attachments.
Best regards,
Vlado

I think we're getting down to many people not knowing how to use VrayRT (or even VrayAdvanced) properly to get the most of it
I'm super happy with how the VrayRT development goes, given that many features will be implemented as well.
All I was looking for was some sort of a more realistic tonemapping, although not sure if that is the real issue, as we all discussed here.