RenderMask script no longer working with Vray Next?

[Pixelcon]

Why would it be?
Obviously if it's one node you're interested in, you can isolate it for the purposes of mask making.

Not if it's behind other objects.

Because the GI is still calculated (yes I understand that can be turned off).
And the AA settings are going to be excessive and take longer than the very basic settings the script uses.
We're still going to be rendering reflections/refractions from a vray sky which will add time.



edit: the script actually uses the scene's AA settings so disregard that.

Doing a test on a real world production scene using vrays default AA settings.
- The script takes around 15 seconds to render a mask.
vs.
Switching off lights in global switches and after 3 minutes because the vray is quoting me a 15 hour render-time. I'm not even going to bother letting it run.
Switching off lights, GI, glossy effects, shadows, and disabling the env. map and we're still looking at a 10 minute render from what the VFB is saying. I would still consider that a useless way of masking for my purposes.

[^Lele^]

Not if it's behind other objects.

Because the GI is still calculated (yes I understand that can be turned off).
And the AA settings are going to be excessive and take longer than the very basic settings the script uses.
We're still going to be rendering reflections/refractions from a vray sky which will add time.



edit: the script actually uses the scene's AA settings so disregard that.

Doing a test on a real world production scene using vrays default AA settings.
- The script takes around 15 seconds to render a mask.
vs.
Switching off lights in global switches and after 3 minutes because the vray is quoting me a 15 hour render-time. I'm not even going to bother letting it run.
Switching off lights, GI, glossy effects, shadows, and disabling the env. map and we're still looking at a 10 minute render from what the VFB is saying. I would still consider that a useless way of masking for my purposes.

I thought the script didn't work anymore.

[Pixelcon]

It does if you don't have any vraybitmaps present in the scene. That's where it fails and crashes your viewport (well it does for me at least).

[^Lele^]

You can alternatively add a black lightMtl to the overrides, and tick on opacity (and refraction should you want it), leaving hte lights and other switches alone.
Ofc you'll need to use object, not material ID, for the multimatte to work.
And, since no adaptation can take place in the RGB, you will need a min AA higher than 1 (say, 3).
It won't take any appreciable time to prep you maks, regardless of min AA)

[^Lele^]

It does if you don't have any vraybitmaps present in the scene. That's where it fails and crashes your viewport (well it does for me at least).

For me, it renders black regardless of scene contents.

[Pixelcon]

You can alternatively add a black lightMtl to the overrides, and tick on opacity (and refraction should you want it), leaving hte lights and other switches alone.
Ofc you'll need to use object, not material ID, for the multimatte to work.

I guess that's closest to what the script is doing!

That's strange it doesn't work for you. I'm using it on a week old max 2023 installation so I haven't done any fiddling...


Perhaps a very simple script could actually be made by harnessing these vray features as you mentioned...


For example:
Hold scene.
Get selected objects and add them to override ignore
switch on mat override and add black vraylightmaterial
apply white vraylightmaterial to selected objects
clear all render elements
apply basic AA settings
turn off GI (and any other settings that might need to be switched off).
disable all VFB layers
render
save out?
scene fetch.

[^Lele^]

Given the amount of steps required, and the specificity of each masking task, scripting a tool would require comparatively enormous efforts, for hardly any improvement in UX.
Three clicks are three clicks, be they on a script, or on the actual Max UI.

Before i am accused of feet-dragging, let me explain.
As i made a script to touch override options, i'd have to replicate the ones already in the UI, to end up toggling them remotely.
The script could not assume any of those options to not be needed, so it wouldn't be a streamline of much else than the "override" toggle, at best.
Given the actual scenario (masks after a completed beauty.), changing manually min AA to something suitable is trivial as well, as it is to set up IDs.
A script offering options would have to build a ton of logic (look at the size of the script in question: 5424 lines.), for very little user experience improvement.

[Pixelcon]

Understood. I'm not expecting you to write this script, but was simply trying to explain why it's so important to some of us.

Sometimes when it's 10 mins after deadline and a client calls, the difference between a 15 second mask and a 10 minute mask could be the difference between great word of mouth or a lost client.
I understand the timescale of most projects are vastly different to mine, but that's the reality of my situation such is my requirement for quick, dirty, and quite hacky tools and options.

[^Lele^]

My whole lighting TD career revolved around writing such tools, different for each of the productions, even within the same company.
If i had the override options of today, i most definitely would have had an easier time of it.
I promise i'll think of ways to try and streamline the process, it's just the devs already did a great job, and the room to maneuver is a lot less.

[Pixelcon]

My whole lighting TD career revolved around writing such tools, different for each of the productions, even within the same company.
If i had the override options of today, i most definitely would have had an easier time of it.
I promise i'll think of ways to try and streamline the process, it's just the devs already did a great job, and the room to maneuver is a lot less.

The corona feature 'render masks only' does seem to be a very decent solution to this problem.

[^Lele^]

Indeed, and that works because they switch how they adapt the sampler.
Not something that can be done via scripting, it would require code changes.
Notice it's analogous for speed to us doing what i described above, if perhaps with adaptation the mask edges are likely cleaner.

EDIT: this is also necessary because Corona doesn't offer fixed sampling as such. So if one used an override approach like ours, mask edges wouldn't look as clean as with the option to adapt around them.

[Joelaff]

How does the speed compare with a simple global material override to an all black material? Then use as multi matte for the mattes. Disable Gi and shadows of course.

I have never used the script.

[^Lele^]

How does the speed compare with a simple global material override to an all black material? Then use as multi matte for the mattes. Disable Gi and shadows of course.

Just using a perfectly black lightMtl will provide for the most speed (somewhat reduced by the need for fixed sampling, but still lightning fast.).
I can't imagine the script being any quicker for the same result.

[Pixelcon]

Rendertime-wise no, it's probably no slower than the script. However there's more to the equation than just render times. If I open a scene, we're talking about 3 clicks and I have a mask with this script versus doing it 'manually' which requires the many additinoal clicks it takes to set up the lightmaterial, change the vray render settings, assign objectIDs to objects, set up the multimaterials etc.etc.

Try to see it from the perspective of someone who needs quick masks 100s of times per year and all those additional clicks add up over time.

[Joelaff]

Oh, I completely understand. I use masks on most every job. I try to set them up before the render, but I understand that sometimes you miss something.

…and speed is always off the essence.