V-Ray Suggestion: VFB - Real Time, Camera, Lens and Film Attributes

[stevejjd]

Hello again,

I have a real conviction that a truly artist friendly render engine must be able to show the final image in the frame buffer in real time and interactively. The VFB, Corrections Control is excellent and a step in the right direction but there is so much more power that could be realized. The ability to see the final 'look' while interactively creating is a primary concern for artists.

Films, Movies and Photos all have a certain "look" which is not just the result of the Color Profiles, Corrections and LUTs but the physical properties of the Camera, Lens and film. Adding controls for Camera, Lens and Film profiles is at the heart of my product suggestion for V-Ray. It would be implemented much like the VFB Corrections Controls so one would be able to mimic the look of a film.

Lets say you want to match the look of "The Hateful Eight", you would research the movie on a site like this one and then apply camera, camera lens, film stock profiles that correspond to the ones listed. You could have controls for film stock grain, chromatic aberration, bloom, glare, flare....all the attributes of the camera, lens and film by selecting a profile. You could have Lens profiles, like this one. There would be an intensity slider to make these effects subtle but present

Its just like looking up IOR values for materials on refractiveindex.info, or its like getting V-Ray scan materials only your getting lens, camera and film grain profiles.

There should be little to no reliance on exporting an image from the frame buffer to compositing software to create the final look. Artist want to view and show off the worlds they make interactively with the final look applied in real time. They Do Not want a Preview or to stop a render to see a post effect. Its an extremely discouraging process to get the Frame Buffer image 60-70% to the final look, then having to export the image for post work only to realise you need to go back to the 3d scene for changes. All these effects must be in real time and interactive. There must be no interruptions when look developing and visualizing. Trust me you want the final look now and in the frame buffer of the actual 3d scene...not in post and not in image editing software. You would be able to export the effects stack out of the frame buffer to Photoshop, after effects or davinci resolve or feed the VFB corrections with profiles made in 3rd party programes.

Interactive, Real-Time, Final Look Development can be a reality and will make for a seamless, immersive experience.

- Steve


****UPDATE****

Please think of my idea and massive dump of shit but I'm so sure there are nuggets gold in there too. Also People may respond with better ideas or restate what I'm trying to say in a much better way. Please dont throw out the whole thing if 1 or 2 or 3 things are shitty. Even if 1 hing is good for us all we should do it. If 1 thing can be added that makes us all happy then that's 1 step forward.

[Bigguns]

Totally agree ! Already, Fstrom is wayyy better then Vray in the bloom glare departement.. the one in Vray is blurring the image instead of just the glowing part of it and it's done after the render.. I remember when I was using Fry render, it was realtime while rendering, at least the gloom and glare, I could load differents maps of glare and adjust it realtime it was awesome ! Corona is having something really cool lately also. I agree on all you said !

[stevejjd]

Thanks Luc Bégin AKA BigGuns!
You are my hero! - I love your art work!

Please people, don't let this thread go past, add your comment if you want this and please share it too.

[vlado]

While I understand where you are coming from, there is a choice that we have to make as developers: do we focus our efforts on making the render engine itself faster, more memory efficient and capable of handling a large variety of rendering situations, or do we focus on replicating Photoshop and Nuke? Or do we simply provide you with a live link to Photoshop and Nuke where you can see you render and do what you want with it...

If you want a 3D application + interactive rendering + live compositing, you can experiment with Clarisse, I've heard good things about it.

Best regards,
Vlado

[vlado]

There's also another point which rarely comes up; camera technology is changing rapidly. Nobody uses film anymore, everything is digital. Digital cameras are getting better and better with reduced artifacts such as grain, chromatic aberration etc and with better color response. Is there a point in us trying to mimic the drawbacks of a dead technology? We give you a few post-processing options, more can certainly be added, but how useful is it to simulate the look of a film technology that has not been in production, for let's say, 15 years?

Best regars,
Vlado

[viscorbel]

Vlado,
Say what you will about artifacts like grain and ca, but the 'dead technology' (film) has unique response curve to light and colors, that is very pleasing to the eye. If you look at something like 500px or other popular photo sharing sites, huge portion of the top images, while taken with superior digital cameras, are using software to emulate that 'dead' film look. Even though I would say they do not succeed completely.
In fact, it seems that people are going out of their way to avoid that clinical perfection.
As for the 15 year old film look - just look at the glorious kodachrome shot from 1942 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JeUZT7wjm5...-utah-1942.jpg

With that said, I agree with you that Chaosgroup team should not waste time with adding tons of post processing options, that are easily done in other software. The only thing I would love to get is improved, real time bloom/glare, if you are not using 32 bit workflow it is pita to do in post, and having it done directly from vray would be a very welcome thing. Right now, it is very inconvenient that if you wish to add lens effects, you must re-render the whole image. The intensity mask is also quite unpredictable, as the values needed sometimes don't make sense.

There's also another point which rarely comes up; camera technology is changing rapidly. Nobody uses film anymore, everything is digital. Digital cameras are getting better and better with reduced artifacts such as grain, chromatic aberration etc and with better color response. Is there a point in us trying to mimic the drawbacks of a dead technology? We give you a few post-processing options, more can certainly be added, but how useful is it to simulate the look of a film technology that has not been in production, for let's say, 15 years?

Best regars,
Vlado

[vlado]

Say what you will about artifacts like grain and ca, but the 'dead technology' (film) has unique response curve to light and colors, that is very pleasing to the eye.

Then the goal should be to give you tools to produce images that are pleasing to the eye, and not necessarily to emulate any particular technology, right?

The only thing I would love to get is improved, real time bloom/glare, if you are not using 32 bit workflow it is pita to do in post, and having it done directly from vray would be a very welcome thing.

Assuming that this is will be in V-Ray 3.5, what else do you want to see?

Best regards,
Vlado

[Mokiki]

I am with viscorbel on this one. The only thing I'd really like you guys to take a look at is real time bloom and glare. I also would like if we could get a render element with just the bloom and glare information.(If possible)
Maybe it's just my lack of knowledge but I never found a good way to add it back onto the image while using multipass compositing.

[stevejjd]

Thanks so much for your reply Vlado.
I hope its not bad timing to bring up that subject, I know you must be super busy with the beta and remember I'm just 1 artist with my own opinion.

I really hope some more big heavy weight artists like Luc AKA BigGuns can also reply to this thread. Its a discussion that needs to be had - I wish there was a way to invite people to this thread.

I must apologies and should clarify that I do not propose that Chaos Group make a complex of post treatment software like Nuke or Photoshop or Clarisse. If we went down that path there would be no end to it, I recognize that as a bad idea and I do not want to over indulge.

I do propose only those very specific tools mentioned above that will allow artists to get about 90% to final result/look/feel. Its not designed to substitute Nuke/Photoshop.

Those specific controls mentioned above are those that are of most importance. We need just them and no more as they contribute very specific things to an image. They have been targeted on purpose because they are attributes specific to cameras and we are shooting with a camera. I believe that the cost of making only these specific tools is outweighed by the amount of beauty, emotion, feel they add to a render.

Without them the render feels incomplete and like we have not passed a threshold of satisfaction in the render. We need only pass a certain threshold of aesthetic beauty and emotional feel with the frame buffer image and its these specific tools allow an artist to pass a that threshold as it makes the image feel complete. They add fullness, completeness, realism, life to an image. They make us feel that we are looking through something and not looking at a raw render. One would feel more than happy to export to nuke and Photoshop for further embellishments after these tools are implemented in the shot. And some shots could actually be made 100% complete right in the VFB.

Disregard the idea of making full composition software - rather, Please only consider the specific tools suggested. And please reflect on why they were chosen and the fullness that they add. Only these specific effects add the value and quality that they do.

Would you consider a feasibility study? Such a project could be broken down into achievable chunks and rolled out over time to deliver only what was proposed an no more. from there you can consider if its worth the cost of ignoring.

Thanks so much Vlado.

~ Steve

[stevejjd]

There's also another point which rarely comes up; camera technology is changing rapidly. Nobody uses film anymore, everything is digital. Digital cameras are getting better and better with reduced artifacts such as grain, chromatic aberration etc and with better color response. Is there a point in us trying to mimic the drawbacks of a dead technology? We give you a few post-processing options, more can certainly be added, but how useful is it to simulate the look of a film technology that has not been in production, for let's say, 15 years?

Best regars,
Vlado

Film looks beautiful and artists love to add film qualities in a subtle way. Without it, clean renders look too clean and don't feel natural. Actually Panavision Super 70mm film looks sharper than digital. and you want the feel that you are looking through something at something. Raw renders look unnatural no matter how perfect things are set up. Film is dead not because digital is better quality but because digital is cheaper and more convenient. Film actually looks better and is more of a craft and more expensive. One of the critiques of quentin tarantino on young students is they dont appreciate the craft and materials of traditional film making and what a lens and a film stock add to the image. Just look at the movie hateful 8, its exquisite and beats the pants of any digital camera.

[stevejjd]

Vlado,
Say what you will about artifacts like grain and ca, but the 'dead technology' (film) has unique response curve to light and colors, that is very pleasing to the eye. If you look at something like 500px or other popular photo sharing sites, huge portion of the top images, while taken with superior digital cameras, are using software to emulate that 'dead' [/URL]


Sorry I may have miscommunicated . Im not after a complex of post effects software I was only asking for 3 things. With that said, I agree with you that Chaosgroup team should not waste time with adding tons of post processing options, that are easily done in other software. The only thing I would love to get is improved, real time bloom/glare, if you are not using 32 bit workflow it is pita to do in post, and having it done directly from vray would be a very welcome thing. Right now, it is very inconvenient that if you wish to add lens effects, you must re-render the whole image. The intensity mask is also quite unpredictable, as the values needed sometimes don't make sense.

Yes, Film is superior in terms of its beauty. Its dead because of its cost to produce in movies. That photo is stunning. You should also look at Ultra Panavision 70mm - its actually sharper that digital. And some of the most beautiful photos are in large format.

[joconnell]

Film's definitely more expensive and more of a craft, it's more restrictive and a bigger risk than shooting digital. Say for example it cost you 50 dollars every time you hit the render button with vray would you spend more time fixing everything in your scene as much as possible before hitting go? Are film photographers getting better results because of film itself or because they have to spend as much time as possible getting everything else right before they take a shot? If you were shooting a film would you randomly film different stages of a set being built just or the sake of tests or would you try and get everything as right in camera as possible before rolling?

You're right on clean renders not feeling natural though, they're normally linear and our eyes don't work in linear so a raw render doesn't look perfectly realistic. Likewise most digital camera sensors these days shoot what's in front of them as near linear light and then add on a load of response curves to pull the footage closer to what our eye would have seen. When we do a 3d render we're only simulating a tiny fraction of the phenomena of light that happens in the real world - optics, atmosphere, variety in detail and accurate values are often completely missing. If you try to simulate those things while you're doing your render you'll likely end up in processing hell where we have a lot of things that can mimic the same effects in comp far quicker - might be a case of trying to refine your workflow to accommodate this?

On the sense of an image, I love the cityscapes done by a chap called Jeremy Mann. He uses rollers, palette knifes and rags and has spent about 15 years trying to figure out the very minimum amount of detail he needs to put into a painting so that you get the feel and impression of being there, if you look at it up close though it's often complete garbage - one of the ILM concept guys shot a short documentary about him and his process, really fascinating stuff

[viscorbel]

Improved bloom/glare with intensity mask setting adjustable on the fly would make me a happy camper.

Another thing i would change would be order of operations in postprocessing - right now it seems that vfb applies highlight burn/exposure on top of everything else.
Try rendering a simple image, reducing the burn and then boosting contrast with an s curve - seems like a pretty standard operation. What we get instead is this weird grey unusable image. So to get a simple curve adjustment directly in vfb, you have to burn in the color mapping and rerender if you want to change burn amount.


'Filmic' color mapping would be great to have. Here's a comparison image I found
And some info https://knarkowicz.wordpress.com/201...mapping-curve/

Then the goal should be to give you tools to produce images that are pleasing to the eye, and not necessarily to emulate any particular technology, right?
Assuming that this is will be in V-Ray 3.5, what else do you want to see?

Best regards,
Vlado

[stevejjd]

Hell yes! thats what Im talking about.

See? - Im not asking for every tool just 3

That looks great. Just simple lense and film characteristics. They don't have to be complicated.

Chaos group could study the response curve of some beautiful film stock an camera lenses and just make an approximate profile. Its just like how they are making vray scans but with film and lenses to produce camera profiles.

Its just to mimic the look of a technology so render look natural not to perfect 100% matching.

Its these specific items because they are to do with cameras and we are rendering from a camera. I dont want the full photoshop in VFB

[grantwarwick]

I like to look at the VFB as an app in itself these days. A mini compositing software.

Things we absolutely need

-Realtime glare (With chromatic aberration around highlights, ability to up or down the strength as well)

-Realtime bloom with filter presets (like those generated out of the filter generator tool)

-LUT is taking off
As you guys are the scientists, possibly look at generating some of your own lut files because I reallllyyyyy don't trust where or how current luts are made. They have labels on them saying what camera they are from but usually gamma, strength and colors are completely all over the place, there is no one person or place bringing a standardized library specifically for use in V-Ray/ Linear workflows

I'm excited to see how the new VFB looks because the PD player UI is actually really great from a functional point of view!
For a long time now I've had an idea of how the VFB could look and if I ever get time I'd love to photooshop something together but I'm glad other users are starting to speak up and ask for these things.
The new V-Ray RT GPU is so damn good and fast I really do think it's time to focus more on aesthetics and create some eye candy features for the users. It's been a long hard few years where speed, optimisation has been the key but you honestly all outdid yourselves in this market. I'm never complaining about the speed any more. I'm genuinely happy with this for now.

Cheers