we still like vray

[dennis]

on my LCD it looks like the red/green walls are slightly reflecting, wich is not present in the vray test, didnt notice this on my CTR though

[studioDIM]

Jose said he added some blur in photoshop because the maxwell output was too sharp. I didn't notice whether he posted the original output or not. It is certainly pertinent information.

Perhaps the Vray render could be put alongside the photo and m~r render at the same size for a better comparison.

There you go.
Sharp as in noisy, i take it.
With all the bishbosh about the phisically correct, they have to blur it?
Surely a touch of DoF would take care of a sharp image...
I am sure you can cut a lot the rendertimes of a CLEAN ppt, if you do "some blur in photoshop".

Correct me if i am wrong, it seems to me that it's a tad beside the point of having maxwell in the first place

Lele

[priad]

[RErender]

this is what i was talking about, you guys too?

[Morbid Angel]

ahh my bad...yes I didnt see that.
I also want to add that the bleed from the light on the sealing of the cornell is much more correct in vray then it is in maxwell. In maxwell its way blown out.
what im seeing strange in vray, minor thing but, highlite on the ball is happening twice. I take one is the actual hightlite the other is the specular highlite...?

[DaForce]

hahaha when I saw the first post I thought it was going to be a poem, given everything is kept in a nice neat narrow column...maybe broken enter key

Thanks for the script Lele ... cant wait to see the updated version.

Yeah the maxwell render does look rather blurry...hmmm.

[rpc212]

Glad I don't own Maxwell!!! Yipee!

I like to add blur at my choice, not the renderers!

[Olli96]

i noticed the adaptive tracing checkbox in your settings, is that a new feature and how will it improve the lightcache rendering ?

Olli

[studioDIM]

Olli (so you wanted to be called :P)

I guess the adaptiveness is about tracing more samples where needed, rather than like we have now with 1.47.03 where samples are taken everywhere, and noise in PPT clears faster in some areas and slower in some others...

'course it ain't for everyone, just yet...

little thrust here: what's the current version?

Lele

[Da_elf]

i noticed in your scene there is environment light set to 50,50,50 why is this?

[studioDIM]

Herm, for those with max7.5 (like me)is there a chance to try the scene out?
With a boboscript or something?

Cheerio,

Lele

[Ryan_Chiong]

hi guys,

Can anyboby send the light material used in this scene for max 7? or maybe setting fot the CFL used in this scene will do. Max7 pls.

/Ryan

[CarlosBZ]

Overall, I think Mxw is a little bit more real on colors and light difusion - appreciation strictly based on samples, Vray is sharper and lighter. Light emission on Mxw burns the ceiling meanwhile Vray is more subtle. Light strike over green color wall and red color wall and colors itself it's more real on Mxw then in Vray compared to Cornell. Vray is a little flat and dark on colors but scene is more lightened then Mxw scene that is dark compared to Cornells. As spoted before caustic error/leak sphere on Mxw and double highlight sphere error on Vray as well. Vray flat refraction on green wall in the sphere, Mxw lacks of definition and blur.

[Morbid Angel]

Guys, the judgement on the vray render, cannot be conclusive, because the render was done inproperly in respect to physical correctness.
We are working on a version wich will be setup physicly correct, with correct materials and light propagation.
Stay tuned.

[Da_elf]

im still wondering...why is vrays environment color set to 50,50,50 in your scene? i would think that for a properly physical representation we would need more info on the real photo. was the room the pic was taken in pitch black? then we would need to drop the environment color to black (turn it off)