Request: Remove unused image filters

[kosso_olli]

Hey guys,
is it possible to clean up the list of image filters? I feel there are a lot of unusefull ones in there, like Catmull-Rom or Mitchell-Netravali which tend to produce artifacts.
In my eyes, there are only these: Lancos, Area, Cubic and Soften. What do you think?

[matanov]

We have some filters marked for removal later (maybe before Update 1). Actually there are a lot of UI optimizations planned, so you'll see obsolete controls disappearing in time.

[kosso_olli]

Actually there are a lot of UI optimizations planned, so you'll see obsolete controls disappearing in time.

Fantastic!

[Joelaff]

Whoah!

No
No
No
No
No

We use Soften all the time. It produces the most photoreal result. (Soften at 2.98 to 3.98 ).

Seriously, I posted about this a couple years back. We always try to use Soften. It does render slower. So sometimes we use Area. I don't like any filters with any sort of sharpening unless I am doing a still.

Catmul-Rom is nice for a hint of sharpening with a still.

Please do not ever REMOVE features-- ever. I don't get the allure of "cleaning up." This is a technical art. We like choices, and someone is likely using what YOU think is a redundant feature.


(I now see you were saying to KEEP Soften... By all means! Anyway, don't remove features--EVER.)

[Joelaff]

We have some filters marked for removal later (maybe before Update 1). Actually there are a lot of UI optimizations planned, so you'll see obsolete controls disappearing in time.

Again, please do not EVER remove features. I cannot stress this enough. Never, ever remove features.

You can hide them in "Expert" mode (which I always have turned on anyway. Or even make one called "Expert Legacy For Idiots Who Like Settings." I don't care if they are slightly hidden, but why on Earth would you want to remove features. Somebody is likely using that feature.

If people don't like lots of settings then I would suggest they reconsider their career choice. This job is about control by the artists.

[squintnic]

Please remove the nasty filters.
I would get rid of catmull rom and soften - these are really strong and are best done in post.

[kosso_olli]

We use Soften all the time. It produces the most photoreal result. (Soften at 2.98 to 3.98 ).

Sorry, the list I wrote are the ones that should be left in. So soften should be safe. We use that as well, gives pleasing results.

[kosso_olli]

Somebody is likely using that feature.

Yes, but often these features were introduced over a decade ago, and now they cause trouble. Like the ringing-artifact with Catmull-Rom. And people complain about these errors all the time here in the forums, so sometimes old ropes need to be cut.

In my eyes these filters can be removed without any danger:

- Sharp quadratic
- Catmull-Rom
- Plate Match
- Quadratic
- Video
- Cook Variable
- Blend
- Blackman
- Mitchell-Netravali

[Joelaff]

Please remove the nasty filters.
I would get rid of catmull rom and soften - these are really strong and are best done in post.

Again, please NEVER remove features.. and definitely not Soften or Catmull-Rom. (It's as if millions of Ed Catmull's suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.)

Try Soften around 2.98 or 3.98 (I always go close to the next integer to avoid additional edge samples).

Render some fine geometry with a bright highlight edge on it (e.g. car antenna in sunlight). Compare it with other filters. You will see it absolutely CANNOT be done in post. (Try it-- the result is garbage compared to the right image filter) The edges are so much nicer than other samplers. Highlights properly bloom over edges slightly. This is how real lenses work. In VFX we strive to match live action plates. In other fields (archviz perhaps) sharper images may be desirable, but lenses simply aren't that good.

[Joelaff]

Yes, but often these features were introduced over a decade ago, and now they cause trouble. Like the ringing-artifact with Catmull-Rom. And people complain about these errors all the time here in the forums, so sometimes old ropes need to be cut.

User error is not a reason to remove features. It just isn't.

Anyone who understands filters knows what ringing is and when it is good or bad.

In my eyes these filters can be removed without any danger:
[snip]
- Blend
[snip]

I agree with you on Blend because that really can be done in post. (OK, still not identical, but pretty close, and better looking either way). But I do bet somebody has used that in production because they could.

Again, please don't ever remove features. You can hide them someplace, but not much benefit to removing them, IMO. We are, after all, using MAX, which is the king of ancient features

[kosso_olli]

I do not agree. Remove the stuff that causes trouble and is standing in the way for future optimization.
Get rid of the filters, get rid of Irradiance Map and Photon mapped caustics.

[Joelaff]

I do not agree. Remove the stuff that causes trouble and is standing in the way for future optimization.
Get rid of the filters, get rid of Irradiance Map and Photon mapped caustics.

There we agree. If something is in the way of future optimization then talk to the users and remove it if you have to.

This is very different from removing things to reduce clutter, or because someone thinks it might overwhelm the user with choices, which I am against.

I think image filters likely fall into the second category, and thus should remain, as there is no benefit to their removal. Put a divider line in the pop up menu and label all the old stuff Legacy. Put the most useful filters at the top. Or just keep them all alphabetical. I bet many users don’t ever touch the image filter settings anyway.

Things like Irradiance Map I could see interfering with progress, and thus there being a benefit to removal.

[joconnell]

get rid of Irradiance Map

The biggest 3dsmax / vray environment shots in blockbuster movies are done with irmap, it's reeeeallly really good.

[fixeighted]

Interesting piece of info joconnell
And a very interesting conversation, the cumulative effect of which should be beneficial to all
I wait eagerly for more input.

[joconnell]

Not much to it fixeighted - if you've got huge scenes with only a moving camera, especially with interiors, baked irmap is amazing for getting clean rendertimes. For example a factory interior went from 4.30 a frame at 2k to around 1.30 - the GI in interiors can generate a lot of noise which makes the aa sampler work harded, this kills it all off.