Resurrect Vray Physical Camera

[Dave_Wortley]

There's a few things I liked about the max Physical camera but I prefered the UI of the old one, and also the speed at which issues can be fixed... there's a horizontal shift bug that means we won't touch physical cameras in max 2016.

But I would welcome a return of the VrayPhysicalCamera with its on/off exposure. It'd break literally none of our tools as we still have the old VrayPhysical Camera code in there.

[Morne]

If it does make a return, I wonder if they will keep the ISO standard formula, or use the different Kodak ISO formula that the Max physical cam is using...

[vlado]

If it does make a return, I wonder if they will keep the ISO standard formula, or use the different Kodak ISO formula that the Max physical cam is using...

Would it make a difference to you? I don't plan to change it, but I'm open to persuasion...

Best regards,
Vlado

[Dave_Wortley]

I would like to just be able to change the F stop only to get the depth of field physically correct without having to worry about balancing shutter speed or ISO or using any kind of exposure control.

[Morne]

Would it make a difference to you? I don't plan to change it, but I'm open to persuasion...

Best regards,
Vlado

Yes it would. I prefer the Kodak ISO, we nicely got use to predictable results with certain values used from EV tables on wikipedia. It took a while to get use to this compared to the OLD VrayCam. We had to unlearn the values we use to use. To go through that AGAIN, will be a major pain. Plus, do you really want ANOTHER 10 page thread with people complaining and not understanding why the "new" VrayCam gives different results compared to the Max Physical Cam?

[JezUK]

Yes it would. I prefer the Kodak ISO, we nicely got use to predictable results with certain values used from EV tables on wikipedia. It took a while to get use to this compared to the OLD VrayCam. We had to unlearn the values we use to use. To go through that AGAIN, will be a major pain. Plus, do you really want ANOTHER 10 page thread with people complaining and not understanding why the "new" VrayCam gives different results compared to the Max Physical Cam?

+1 - we need to move forwards.

[vlado]

I'm not sure it will be a big problem, to be honest... I don't think there ever was a 10 page thread about it.

Best regards,
Vlado

[LudvikKoutny]

Thanks Lele for the script! It's now very convenient to access Vray's camera again.

What I had in mind, mostly, is that if VrayPhysicalCamera was to return officially (which I hope it will) I would like to see at the very least cleaned up user interface. That autogenerated UI layout is cancer.

I had a little bit of time to spend, so I've made a mockup of what I would like the new VrayPhysicalCamera UI to look like. It keeps the exactly same feature set, but it has more comprehensive naming, and basically layout that doesn't confuse you at a glance:


If the VrayPhysicalCamera UI looked like this (the one on the right), I would love every second of using it, even if there were no new features.

[kosso_olli]

That mock-up looks very good, I have to say. Very organized!

[NicoC]

That mock-up looks very good, I have to say. Very organized!

Yup, but maybe a bit too much rollouts-splitted for my taste ... a compromise would be great.
For example, why not gathering DoF / Specify Focus / Bokeh effects ? same thing for Sensor & Lens / Aperture.

Anyway, good work Recon442 !!

[Ihno]

I like that f-stop, iso and shutter speed are in one Place.

[LudvikKoutny]

Yup, but maybe a bit too much rollouts-splitted for my taste ... a compromise would be great.
For example, why not gathering DoF / Specify Focus / Bokeh effects ? same thing for Sensor & Lens / Aperture.

Anyway, good work Recon442 !!

I considered that, but there are two factors:

1, Most people rarely use bokeh all the time. Mostly they just turn on simple DoF. Bokeh is quite niche feature, and has lots of controls. You don't want lots of controls for something you don't use often in your face all the time.

2, DoF next to specify focus makes sense, but at the same time it's very neat to have ISO, Fstop and Shutter next to each other. By default, focus distance is specified by target distance, therefore focus distance is basically an override of target distance, so it makes sense next to target too. There's a certain balance between doing some compromises in favor of UI layout vs in favor of technical reasoning. Tilting it too much towards one or the other thing will usually break everything.

[rajdarge]

haven't use VrayPhyscam in some time. I do like the ring effects in bokeh with the Physical camera, can you get those bokeh balls with VrayPhyscam? If it looks like its coming back I'll have to change my camera manipulator plugin to work with the physical and the vrayPhyscam - but I'm sure its no biggie.

[Syclone1]

I like that f-stop, iso and shutter speed are in one Place.

I have to agree with you there, that has been a constant wish of mine not having to go from one end of the list to the other to search for and change those 3 options.

[JezUK]

I like that f-stop, iso and shutter speed are in one Place.

I like it too - "Camera Settings" rather than "Aperture" for the rollout title.

And I would *love* it to have real world values rather than stepless (totally unreal) ones.

eg. F-stop in 1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6 etc, ISO, 12, 25, 64, 100, 200 etc, Shutter speeds 1/125, 1/60, 1/8 etc etc.

1/3, 1/2 and full f-stop values permitted with a radio button style feature including making it stepless for those who prefer working like that