Vray Material Repository: Gathering of ideas

[Neilg]

I think youre overcomplicating it.

The lightbox for simple(hah) shaders should stay, maxwells is good.

For arch vis, I vote a simple exterior scene, simple interior scene - both with a chamfered box in the middle of the view for the materials to go on rather than changing the view and applying it to different objects. I think for quick referance on a site like that you'd need to keep camera angles locked and the base properties as close as possible. Unless thats what you had in mind and I misunderstood...

I dont think we should use LWF either - it just adds more variables. Something like linear colour mapping at 1,1, IR map & LC, - really basic easy settings which give predictable results. Its what everyone started on, so you'll know how those results will look within your own settings/workflow.

[DaForce]

true...hmmm yeah.. simpliest is probabaly going to be the best option.
Its not going to be possible for us to show the materials in all the "ideal" situations.

[mcvltd]

I think the idea of the 3 different simple scenes is good.

What I would be looking for is how the material looks on a flat surface, curved surface, in ambient/direct light. Scale can also be very important.

So long as the scenes are designed to show as much of these as poss then I can't see a problem.

.... ooh .... and what's ChaosSuid?

[instinct]

it's called chaossquid :P and it's meant to be an internal exchange for legit vray users similar to turbosquid (hence the name :P) Sadly i'm really in crunchtimes at work atm, and it's hard to find the time to get it productionready.

Regards,
Thorsten

[CCS]

I dont think we should use LWF either - it just adds more variables. Something like linear colour mapping at 1,1, IR map & LC, - really basic easy settings which give predictable results. Its what everyone started on, so you'll know how those results will look within your own settings/workflow.

I disagree with this part. Going with LWF actually *reduces* variables, not increases. If we use "the old way we all got started on", then you throw each person's gamma, etc. into the mix.

[phildlight]

I think this is a super idea! I'll contribute mats.

I don't know about the LWF thing either. I currently don't use it. I have those ultra bright (light your whole room) Dell FPW2005's, and I tried using the LWF, but the gamma correction on my monitors made it difficult to get right on other monitors. I just decided to give up on the whole thing and drop back to basics. Just eliminate the monitor from the mix.

I mean, look, we're all using different monitors, so the mats are obviously going to look different to everyone anyway, so why try to make it so scientific?

You guys are bordering on the maxwellian (must match reality 100%) ideals, which drives me crazy. We're in the business of making pretty pictures, not replicating reality to the nth.

My 2 cents.

[Neilg]

I disagree with this part. Going with LWF actually *reduces* variables, not increases. If we use "the old way we all got started on", then you throw each person's gamma, etc. into the mix.

Telling someone to turn the gamma off in max is no harder than telling them to switch it on to 2.2 - I dont use LWF in most of my scenes either, its on a case by case basis. Sometimes I use 1.8 gamma, sometimes 2.2. But I always start with gamma turned off, and I assumed most other people did too.

[tct70]

I agree.............the whole LWF thing has not been grasped by many users (myself included) so they would not benefit from what would be a fantastic resource.

[CCS]

My point is not that people use LWF necessarily. That's up to each person. I'm only suggesting that it be used for the representative renderings to show these materials with as little bias as possible.

[Neilg]

I'm only suggesting that it be used for the representative renderings to show these materials with as little bias as possible.

LWF is bias though... Its just brighter. Closer to reality, it may be, but its further from the max/vray defaults and could cause problems for a number of users who have never heard of it.

Those that know it know how to work with it and around it, those that dont are still in the dark. All you'd end up with is 10 threads a day saying 'why doesnt this material look like the one on the site preview, whaa whaa whaa'

[mcvltd]

Good point, I guess those people who have gone LWF will know exacltly what to do to make their matls look good for them, and therefore are less likely to post questions.

Thorsten - oops, typo. I meant to type ChaosSquid! This sounds like an ultra cool idea - can't wait to see it up and running.

[CCS]

But *all* of the color mapping methods intriduce bias. That's what they do. If you suggest Linear, then Larry will suggest Exponential, and Bruce will demand HSV. Do we then thumbwrestle to pick? I am only suggesting LWF because its whole purpose is to compensate for the response of a monitor, and other than that is fairly neutral. Also, when I create a material and render it with the different methods, LWF returns an image that most closely matches whatever I had in the diffuse channel. That is one of the things I like most about it. It is predictable.

I don't really care what is chosen. I am just suggesting what I think is least biased for this purpose. I'd like to hear from some of the heavyweights here too. Especially people who have honestly tried *all* methods and settled on one or another. After all, should we rule out SSS and caustics in materials because most people haven't "got their head around it".

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I'd just like to see the test scene set up correctly rather than with the lowest common denominator settings. Otherwise it is of little use. Whatever system or material adjustments each person makes to their own setup is completely their choice.

Opinions??

[phildlight]

I'd just question what is generally accepted as the norm in gamma correction, and go with that. Can we start a poll to see who uses what gamma correction techniques, and who uses none, then use that as the basis for the mat object scene?

[Neilg]

What if we use all of them, depending on what the image looks like and what works best? There is no norm - if its too dark, make it brighter. Too saturated, take it down. Not satura.. etc

Its a question of knowing what to use and when - which is why I suggested defaults. If you dont know shit youll have no suprises and can just get it in your scene, if you do you'll know exactly how to tweak it to your scene having made the transistion before already.


I'll take a back seat now though (sorry CCS), this is only a vague suggestion.

[CCS]

I'll take a back seat now though (sorry CCS), this is only a vague suggestion.

I don't follow ???