Fstorm render

[mitviz]

on topic now?
check this out
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

[Sbrusse]

Yes those renders are absolutely amazing

It's hard to find that good renders in Vray, even in the Vray World group where a lot of renders are already great

https://www.facebook.com/groups/vrayworld/

[kosso_olli]

Really don't know what this is all about. The artist makes the picture, not his paintbrush. If you feel better with a certain type of paintbrush (ie. FStorm), then use it.

[mitviz]

Really don't know what this is all about. The artist makes the picture, not his paintbrush. If you feel better with a certain type of paintbrush (ie. FStorm), then use it.

Well we're not dealing with some old paintbrush here but sophisticated tech softwares, better the software, easier to achieve the goal, to me less time spent on some things will leave me to work on modeling which is what i like most

[glorybound]

I think engines like FStorm is applying filters automatically, which might frustrate the heck out of some. Although my images are a far cry from some of the work of some of you guys, my images right out of MAX/V-Ray are not anything special. I have to do some work in PS to make things look somewhat good. The things I am doing in PS seems to be, being done inside FStorm automatically. The frustration might come when you might not want that look that is coming out of the software. Or, when all the images start to look the same because everyone is using the same software, which is applying the same filters.

[Sbrusse]

Having worked with both I can say that the RT of FStorm is just way faster than Vray's and thus you work faster and get the result you want way quicker.
If it was just a filter, well count the time you spend in PS and let me know if that would not be good to pass that time doing something else you'd love to do in stead...

At the end of the day, even if all my images where looking like these, well that's absolutely fine by me :

[glorybound]

I have yet to really experience the benefits of RT. I upgraded my video card, thinking I could start to use it, but that just hasn't happened. When I tested FStorm, it just worked, so I get that. Yes, the images are good, but not any better than anything else, or are you saying you think that they are?

[Sbrusse]

Well I've seen a lot of pretty renders of FStorm and it's a really recent renderer, it hasn't got a big community yet, so if you scale that proportionally to any other renderer out there you will quickly see that the average quality render with FStorm will be higher than the others.
It's mainly due to the fast workflow IMO, it just works and it's fast to RT with it. I'm not talking about final HQ renders noiseless, therefore, Vray has still the lead with LC being implemented, but who cares when you can just send your still renders overnight on the farm and they are done in the morning, the most important thing for me is the speed at what you work, and the quality it produces with the less input.
For whatever material that needs to be created, clock in hand, I will mostly be faster in FStorm than Vray. I'm using Vray for 10 years and I've used FStorm for only a couple of days and I'm still not used to the maps and where the settings are. So this only shows how fast the workflow is compared to Vray.

[vlado]

I've heard the same arguments so many times now, Stanley - for Maxwell, then Octane, then iray, then Corona, now FStorm, and tomorrow it will be something else. FStorm looks like a good renderer and Karba seems very dedicated; also using a new renderer can be very refreshing, especially if you've been staring at V-Ray for 10 years. All this is totally fine, but I don't really agree that FStorm is particularly easier or intrinsically more photoreal than V-Ray. In fact, your V-Ray knowledge probably helps a lot when using FStorm too. But if a bit of contrast and highlight burn make you perceive renders as more photoreal, I've got really nothing more to say...

Best regards,
Vlado

[kosso_olli]

I've heard the same arguments so many times now, Stanley - for Maxwell, then Octane, then iray, then Corona, now FStorm, and tomorrow it will be something else. FStorm looks like a good renderer and Karba seems very dedicated; also using a new renderer can be very refreshing, especially if you've been staring at V-Ray for 10 years. All this is totally fine, but I don't really agree that FStorm is particularly easier or intrinsically more photoreal than V-Ray. In fact, your V-Ray knowledge probably helps a lot when using FStorm too. But if a bit of contrast and highlight burn make you perceive renders as more photoreal, I've got really nothing more to say...

Best regards,
Vlado

[joconnell]

I wonder is part of the effect of doing anything that changes an image from the norm? Like a standard photo of real life is kind of dull and automatically looks more appealing when you put some contrast on it. Better again when you put some kind of grade that drags it slightly away from real life or puts a bit of a "style" on it. It's similar to the way that people look at black and white, shallow focus or strange angle photography - it's a view that they don't normally get with their eye so they regard it a bit higher?

The other thing is that vray renders linearly. Nuke is linear too. Film cameras have a slight roll off in their shadows and highlights so they've a slight s-curve with varying mid tones. Digital cameras are linear sensors by default but the manufacturers know that linear is kind of factual and dull and it also doesn't look like film cameras so they've added on their own tone curves to the processing to try and replicate the non-linear toe and shoulder of film. Vray's renders are linear out of the box which is a far better starting point if you're going to go into comp afterwards. Fstorms definitely aren't, they're trying to mimic a photographic response in the frame buffer which would be unhelpful if you were to try and work with render elements in nuke afterwards but if your final deliverable is the result of the fstorm frame buffer then great!

It'd be almost worth getting a texture of a stepped greyscale value and macbeth chart exposed under the same light intensity in fstorm and vray just to see what it's doing.

[vlado]

Well, I can get you a LUT, if that will help...

Best regards,
Vlado

[wyszolmirski]

I love GPU rendering and all the goodies it brings to the table. After I've seen some statements that FStorm is very fast it made me curious. I tested and it isn't faster than RT. In my opinion the best thing about it is that it forces users to actually render on GPU and see how interactive setup and fast feedback can help in day to day work. This doesn't mean you cannot do the same with RT.

ps. After seeing over years how V-Ray's development goes I am very confident that if there is any aspect of FStorm that performs better, V-Ray will soon match or outperform it.

[joconnell]

Well, I can get you a LUT, if that will help...

Best regards,
Vlado

Might be worth something like one of the recent short videos on how you can set up vray to do similar things if it's going to be the final destination of your render? If you're unconcerned with what it's doing under the hood and only care about getting the "prettiest" picture at the end of it (pretty being subjective) then some luts might be useful for some folks?

[mitviz]

I think majority of users i know just want a photoreal image and to see the render on the screen as it might look when shot from a camera, when it comes to RT and gpu, idk what you guys are using inhouse in your side but RT is slow man on my side n from what i read many other peoples side, maybe its how the images clears up? Idk from corona to Fstorm just seems faster and better, can chaosgroup have a once a month twitch session so we can bug you guys like for an hour or two?