Fstorm render

[vlado]

I don't know why so much talk about FStorm glare. I mean, it's nice and all, but Octane has a very similar effect, but WAAAY faster, it's totally interactive. Anyway, despite Vray's glare being able to produce high quality results similar to Corona, FStorm or Octane, one still have to fiddle a bit with the settings, and that's not straightforward nor intuitive. So much that many veteran Vray users here were impressed by other engines without even knowing they can achieve almost the same thing right now. That alone says a lot. So it can definitely be improved.

Well, the V-Ray glare is derived from the camera aperture properties (which is what causes the effect in real life). While this is more physically accurate, there is sometimes no obvious correlation between the input parameters and the output result (f.e. it's hard to explain the effect of the f-number parameter). This can probably be reworked to a more artist-friendly set of controls.

Always end rays softly

This could be done easily.

Bloom and Glare as one

I don't really agree with that; these effects are caused by completely different physical phenomena - bloom is due to information bleeding between pixels where as glare is due to camera optics. While it is possible to calculate both effects in one pass, their controls should be separate.

Intensity mask turned on by default

I don't really agree with that either; in a real camera, the boom/glare are not applied selectively at some parts of the image only; they are present everywhere. FStorm for example doesn't offer any control of that either. I understand the option might be useful from an artistic point of view, but if we are sticking to any sort of physical plausibility, intensity mask should be off by default.

Can VrayLensEffect be GPU accelerated?

Yes, and our GPU guys will look into that at some point.

Best regards,
Vlado

[^Lele^]

I'm not so sure on a few of those points you made, while others are on the to-do list.
However, what's there is quite usable as it is, if perhaps less straightforward than one would like, before having read the documentation and for some specific control moving to simple post.

1) rays do not always end softly, nor do they always end inside the image (see pictures below. At least mine ain't cropped.).
2) The bending is lensing, and you can see both bending and breakup of the rays below (albeit aided by having more layers in between source and CCD than just the lens for my photo. Obstacle image comes to the aid there.).
3) It's as phisically accurate as the paper it was built upon, and the fringing obeys the f-Stops quite correctly. If you take a look at the dropdowns for the mode, you can render your image with glare and bloom channels, add your material/objectID ones, and do all the fiddling you please in post.
4) ?
5) It is accurate. Read above for post work on the results of the effects.
6) Bloom is a convolution through an airy disk, or in layman terms, a weighted blur. However, it's also a specific technical term, and Haze already refers to something else (f.e. heat haze, or air variable IoR, which we can render in volumeGrid).
7) A checkbox to link the two could be a possibility, but forcing the two to work together, is a nono in my book. I want to use Bloom to kill the non-Anti-aliasable edges of my lights, but i'm no believer in Bayism, so won't turn on glare in a million years. They are also produced by two different, albeit similar, optical effects: suffice to say Glare is angle dependent, while bloom practically isn't.
Those controls do not work yet. On the to-do list. For now, all the control you want is three render element and a photoshop session away. Not in camera, but hardly a show-stopper.
9) *I* wouldn't know, so i won't answer.


A picture i took and The top crop of the wikipedia reference image for Glare:

[Midiaeffects]

I don't know why so much talk about FStorm glare. I mean, it's nice and all, but Octane has a very similar effect, but WAAAY faster, it's totally interactive. Anyway, despite Vray's glare being able to produce high quality results similar to Corona, FStorm or Octane, one still have to fiddle a bit with the settings, and that's not straightforward nor intuitive. So much that many veteran Vray users here were impressed by other engines without even knowing they can achieve almost the same thing right now. That alone says a lot. So it can definitely be improved. Here's my suggestions for Vray Lens Effects:

-Always end rays softly: First and foremost Glare should never EVER have those harsh finish like this or this, independent of the size. Sometimes it can be tricky to get rid of it. Looks like glare in Vray uses an internal bitmap mask or something, as if there's dirt on the lens. Glare rays must always produce a smooth gradient. This alone would cut complains in half.
-Glare rays to always be straight: Sounds crazy but when changing size, glare rays often suffer strange distortions. They are especially apparent with low f-numbers.
-Control over spacing: I don't know how physically accurate it is, but sometimes it doesn't look too realistic for me. With high f-numbers it and big glare sizes it looks very bad. Lowering the f-number kinda solves it, but makes rays sharper and we can't blur them.
-Glare Blur: Adds a nice touch when used with sharp rays.
-Diffraction amount: Again, I don't know how physically accurate it is, but I often find the effect too extreme.
-Rename Bloom to Haze: Right now Bloom is a gaussian Blur blended on top. Looks more like a Haze to me. A real Bloom is what Glare does when we turn off Blades to make it circular. But...
-Bloom and Glare as one: Bloom should be derived automatically from Glare itself, with multipliers for size and power.
-Intensity mask turned on by default: Solves this kind of "problem". It's a common source of complain that Bloom makes everything too soft/foggy, when simply masking with a threshold of 1 fix it. What is crazy though, is that we have to re-render for the threshold to take effect because Vray needs to generate a render element. Why does it have to generate a pass anyway? It's a simple color threshold, it doesn't need a pass.
-Make it faster and realtime in RT view: Can VrayLensEffect be GPU accelerated? Octane glare speed is a great reference.

*Bug: Glare is not grabbing F-Number from Physical Camera in max 2017 and Vray 3.40.02 here.

A setup similar to Corona's version:


-Eugenio

[peteristrate]

Vray Glare and Bloom are doing great for me, as far as I tested them, although I admit I don't use them since they are sluggish and lack interactivity.
The only thing that needs implementing is real-time interactivity which is something that the developers have in mind anyway.

Being able to save those from VFB and import them into another post-production software of choice(just like you can export the otehr colour corrections from the VFB) is something welcome as well.

[mitviz]

can you guys use that in a real scene for example an interior and see? when i use it it seems to make everything too soft,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD3cnvWf2K4

[jacksc02]

Nice one Ashley.
I really like the vray lens effects. Simple to use once you know what you are doing.
What would be nice is the ability to save/load presets from the VFB for lens effects.

[Vizioen]

As suspected, it just comes down to the user. Took me 5 minutes. Bottom row is bokeh. Ofcourse your input (lens settings), distances, and power of your lights need to be physically correct.

[^Lele^]

I took a look at the PDF but I couldn't really make much out of it.

No kidding.

[VelvetElvis]

You don't want the glare weight bigger than the size or else you'll get weird cut offs, so your comparison is off base a bit.

Probably the best run down of the lens effects that it out there right now;http://www.the-boundary.com/blog/201...hting-internal

[Neilg]

recon, read this - https://docs.chaosgroup.com/display/...lter+Generator

[LudvikKoutny]

I took a look at the PDF but I couldn't really make much out of it. It looks like V-Ray has a bit more options, but still, V-Rays glare looks the least natural out of all other solutions I've tried.

I did a very simple tests of my own, and pretty much anything looks better than V-Rays lensFX. In other solutions, i did not have to spend much time to find a combo of settings I liked, where as in LensFX, no matter what knobs I twisted, result always looked weird.





BTW Fstorm does seem to have some bloom, but it seems to be linked to the glare intensity... Which is actually pretty smart, as these two effects do not occur separately - less room for user error.

[^Lele^]

here.
glare.zip

[vlado]

We do have some tonemaping, vignette, LUTs but I think it's fair to say that the lens effect (bloom, glare, lens flare) are lacking a bit of love.

FStorm doesn't have bloom, only glare. It's very close to the V-Ray VFB glare actually, but FStorm is missing some options (blend weight, diffraction, obstacle image, ability to use custom glare shape). V-Ray on the other hand is only missing the "blur" option. Lele did a bunch of tests where they looked practically identical... will try to dig those out. Not that there aren't things we can improve, but the difference is not really that big.

Best regards,
Vlado

[mitviz]

You, guys, are missing the point here.
I am also using various tools to create all sort of glares or colour corrections, but importing exporting from and to different applications it's like scratching your left year with the right hand: you lose the interactivity and, many times, you end up with crappy results anyway due to the loss of details(inaccuracies) and feedback while working with different applications, not to mention the cost brought by using different applications is(in terms of time and money).

yup we need all that in one place, in vray, so many plugins, soon we will need a plugin, that needs a plugin, to open 3ds max itself

[peteristrate]

I purchased this years ago. It was clunky, but he is working on a update.
http://www.evvisual.com/glare/

You, guys, are missing the point here.
I am also using various tools to create all sort of glares or colour corrections, but importing / exporting from and to different applications it's like scratching your left ear with the right hand: you lose the interactivity and, many times, you end up with crappy results anyway due to the loss of details(inaccuracies) and feedback while working with different applications, not to mention the cost brought by using different applications is(in terms of time and money).

On the other hand, I know we cannot demand Chaosgroup to introduce every single plugin that's on the market at the moment - that would mean Chaosgroup will have to do the job that all these people, haha.
But things that Vray already has(glare, tonemapping, etc.) need an improvement so as when you render your image, you get a final product image.