New Physical camera its a mess.

[Macker]

I would say that one problem I've had with the new camera is that when you've got any vertical/horizontal correction applied, it gradually (multi pass?) shifts back to the uncorrected view. Only when you click back in the viewport does it display the correct view - but only for a matter of seconds.

I realise this isn't a chaos group problem but an autodesk one, however it makes camera matching extraordinarily tedious.

[vlado]

when you've got any vertical/horizontal correction applied, it gradually (multi pass?) shifts back to the uncorrected view. Only when you click back in the viewport does it display the correct view - but only for a matter of seconds.

This happens only when DOF is enabled and is due to the Nitrous viewport trying to show the DOF effect. It would be best to report this to Autodesk.

Best regards,
Vlado

[Joelaff]

Yeah, it happens with swings and tilts too, making the DOF preview worthless for fine tuning a Scheimpflug.

[^Lele^]

there is also another little bug in the preview of the camera, which may or may not contribute to your woes setting up the focus plane: if you set the focus distance manually (instead of "use target distance") the preview plane changes accordingly, but the viewport DoF preview still maintains the target as focus distance.
With camera skews, a different distance may distort the image differently than what you see without DoF preview (which starts with the current buffer, hence you see correct at first, but then starts using the multipass ones with the target as focus).

[Morne]

With so many people having issues with the new Autodesk/ChaosGroup physical cam in 2016, doesn't it just make sense to ditch it already and get a FULL ChaosGroup version back, but with the "new" features?!? (I know we can get the "old" one with maxscript)

Is there some kind of licensing or exclusivity issue in place that prevents ChaosGroup form further developing their own cam?

[coolhand78]

With so many people having issues with the new Autodesk/ChaosGroup physical cam in 2016, doesn't it just make sense to ditch it already and get a FULL ChaosGroup version back, but with the "new" features?!? (I know we can get the "old" one with maxscript)

Is there some kind of licensing or exclusivity issue in place that prevents ChaosGroup form further developing their own cam?

I like this idea...!

[JezUK]

With so many people having issues with the new Autodesk/ChaosGroup physical cam in 2016, doesn't it just make sense to ditch it already and get a FULL ChaosGroup version back, but with the "new" features?!? (I know we can get the "old" one with maxscript)

Is there some kind of licensing or exclusivity issue in place that prevents ChaosGroup form further developing their own cam?

I agree, and apparently there isn't.

I love the fact that here at Chaos we can place suggestions and Vlado listens & replies - can't say the same about Autodesk.....

[mitchgates]

I have one. How do you match a motion blur interval center of 0.0 (as controlled using std cam and Vray render dialog settings) with the new Physical Camera? The shutter offset does not allow negative values, which would be needed to match the proper motion blur centered used at every VFX studio I've worked at. The default is basically "frame forward" motion blur which is fine for all cg shots, but when you are using a tracked camera and matching to a live action plate then FRAME CENTERED motion blur is the method to use. Unfortunately I can find no way to do this with the new Phys Cam. The old Vray Phys Cam had a "Motion Picture" camera option which allowed frame centered motion blur, so it would be great to get this back.

It appears you can change it to negative values via Maxscript but the UI is blocked.

[themaxxer]

I have not read all of the posts, but I have to say the new cam is not causing any problems for me. and over all I like it more than the old camera, yes you have to change your workflow, but working with +/- EV is great, and I have not to set the f-number etc.
maybe the DOF is causing some issues in the viewport, but I don't need this feature.

best regards
themaxxer

[Alan Iglesias]

It's actually quite a bit simpler and somewhat more logical. You'll get used to it in no time.

Best regards,
Vlado

Bringing up an older thread here....I find the new physical camera in the more recent versions of 3DS Max software to be somewhat different, but as you say usable when you get used to it.

So just a question, Vlado, if I may: When I set up two cameras in a scene, one the original Vray camera through the script, and the other a new Max Physical camera, and then set the F-stop, shutter speed, and ISO to be identical with both cameras, the exposures for the ensuing renders are in fact somewhat different. I was wondering why that is, and what the design issues might have been to cause the difference?? Is it just an arbitrary default EV setting in the new camera? Or perhaps something else...??

Thanks!

-Alan

[vlado]

Autodesk used a different formula for the implementation of ISO numbers; they got their formula from Kodak wheras I got it from the ISO standard.

Best regards,
Vlado

[Alan Iglesias]

Autodesk used a different formula for the implementation of ISO numbers; they got their formula from Kodak wheras I got it from the ISO standard.

Best regards,
Vlado

Ah, very interesting!

Thanks Vlado,

-Alan

[Syclone1]

Autodesk used a different formula for the implementation of ISO numbers; they got their formula from Kodak wheras I got it from the ISO standard.

Best regards,
Vlado

That explains a lot. Maybe AD should have a new tag that says "If it aint broke, fix it"

[Alan Iglesias]

That explains a lot. Maybe AD should have a new tag that says "If it aint broke, fix it"

I hear ya. There's been way too much breaking of things that worked perfectly well...as someone who helped develop Max's original User Interface (Early Alpha Customer Advisory teams), it is very sad, really...

-Alan