Colourspace output issue - Max 2024 & Vray 5

[caypiranha]

Hi Guys, I know - yes it´s not "supported" - Vray 5 on Max 2024, but it is there somehow and I get only ugly frames output while rendering out.
The FB looks fine, but the render output on disk is only in this queasy look. I tried to stay on the legacy output mode Maxßs giving now in it´s new Color Management Settings:



I can turn whatever I want. Output is always not the same as the set colour space.
is there anything I can do to get a 1:1 output on here? Switching to an older Max is not possible, since I used lots of new modifiers here.

thanks for any help in advance!
Kay

[vladimir_krastev]

Hi, thanks for posting.
V-Ray 5 is not supported on 3ds Max 2024.

always not the same as the set colour space

Try setting it to "None" and applying the gamma afterwards in post production.
If it works it won't be really convenient though.

Switching to an older Max is not possible,

You could switch to the Latest V-Ray 6, update 2.

[caypiranha]

thanks for your feedback, Vladimir.
But a bit wondering: what is an installation package of a render engine good, when it even does not give a 1:1 result by using legacy settings?
I understand I Aces/OCIO and all these cool things are not working then, but in this case, I really wonder, why this was released even on an unofficial download channel. It should simply not exist anymore.

[^Lele^]

thanks for your feedback, Vladimir.
But a bit wondering: what is an installation package of a render engine good, when it even does not give a 1:1 result by using legacy settings?
I understand I Aces/OCIO and all these cool things are not working then, but in this case, I really wonder, why this was released even on an unofficial download channel. It should simply not exist anymore.

You wanted it, badly, despite our best effort to warn you.
It's truly bad form to try and beat us with it later, you know.

[caypiranha]

Sorry, maybe my bad if you got it into the wrong throat. Please be so kind and take note: I said "a bit wondering" and NOT " how DARE YOU are..!!"
(Unfortunately, the tone of voice didn't fit into my posting this time, sorry)
So, that was truly not my intention. Just wanted to know if there would not be at least a workaround while using Vray 5 in 2024. That was my first words, of this thread - and that had intention, that I let you know, I understood, that Vray 5 is Not supported in 2024.
I am aware that there may be complications. But I didn't think that this would result in output with 1:1 color management being no longer possible via legacy mode. This is indeed very strange
and I wonder what right there is to have an installation here for 2024? As I said, I expected all the compromises but didn't expect, that really unusable pictures are coming out.
Then the whole thing with Vray 5 on 2024 makes maximum sense as a paradox. And then please allow me to ask this question. Does it make a little bit of sense as well?
But if there are still options for Vray 5 to exist in 2024, which I haven´t seen so far, then I would certainly be interested in that too.

Any quasi-attacks that have now still been found in my text are welcome to be returned or I ask for quick personal disposal. I surely didn't want to give these away

[M.Max]

From the first screenshot it seems that you are using Value 1.0 for Exposure ( display only) which will NOT be saved into the rendered image, add a exposure layer and use that instead.
even better and to avoid noisy render, adjust the exposure from the camera instead.
it is a very common issue that I've seen daily with my students and other artists , and in my opinion it is because of the current UI/UX design so it is not really your fault ......

[^Lele^]

it is a very common issue that I've seen daily with my students and other artists , and in my opinion it is because of the current UI/UX design so it is not really your fault ......

Everyone but Corona has the display-only exposure that works the same: it's an inspection tool, not a look-development one.
As you well said, one should use an exposure layer to change exposure permanently in the rendered material.
I've long suggested we moved the exposure slider elsewhere in the UI (f.e. at the top near the channels), but would that be any clearer than this?

Or this?

[M.Max]

^Lele^ I understand your developer perspective, and you're absolutely right. But based on my experience helping new users and getting questions from other artists, I've noticed this common mistake a lot .
Here are a few reasons I can think of as why it happens:
1-Language Barrier: Not everyone is fluent in English. Some artists, while great at creating renders, might struggle with English. So, even with "Exposure" marked as "(Display only)," they might think it can actually change exposure.
2-Old Habits: Some users are used to the older version, VFB 1.0, where exposure adjustments were part of color correction and saved in the final render.
3-Not Reading the Manual: Many people don't read the manual, even though it's not the best practice. It's a real-world issue.
Personally, I enjoy reading, but not everyone does. I remember spending hours when I was 14 translating 3ds Max documentation into Arabic using a dictionary. However, not everyone shares this interest .

I've seen discussions on this in the forums, and I get your point. but do you think there's a better way to set up this parameter to avoid these misunderstandings?

[^Lele^]

All the things you mention are easy fixes that require no coding, but the very approach a student should have: curiosity and an eagerness to learn.
Lacking that, there is no UI that can help: mind reading is still a bit further out. ^^

On the particular subject: see what Arnold does with its VFB (analogous to f.e. Houdini with Mantra, Renderman with IT, and so on and so forth).
Would a slider up at the top be better?
Notice it would not have a text label, but an icon, and there would be no explicit way to let the user know the exposure is for display only (perhaps a tooltip, on mouse hover and stay. hardly more accessible than it is now.).
Further, it wouldn't have the added options, nor be able to set up the display corrections: it'd just be the one slider.
All this accepted, the question would be if the user would then *expect* it to be saved with the image or not.
And i don't think it'd be any better in this respect: right now everything that has to do with display correction is in one handy place, the rest is for compositing purposes.

My reasoning ends as it started: things can only be made obvious to a point.
There is, and always will be, an entry barrier that requires some user effort in learning tools and the specific methodologies.
Thankfully, this is also an opportunity for someone to teach.

This said, feel free to think this through and propose changes that can work universally, also for those that do read manuals, speak English enough to read the label, and spent time figuring out how things work.
We do listen, think about, debate and try improvements all the time, it's just not very easy to find them.

[M.Max]

Yeah, it's a tricky situation, and honestly, I'm not sure what the best solution is here.
One idea is to put the note from the documentation right next to the Exposure parameter to make it clearer, but that might make the UI look more crowded and won't be enough because of the previously stated reasons .
Another option is to add an exposure layer to the VFB by default, but that could bother some users. Using a slider would be great, especially for users familiar with the mentioned renderer and, of course, with Nuke/After Effects.
Honestly, I don't have a surefire solution that would work for everyone, but I'm sure you guys could work something out.