this is my first post and i want
to say thanks to vlado an his team
for the good job they made.
we use vray in our firm for nearly
two years and there are many projects
who never become true without vray.
okay. as many of all the other user
we look sometimes over the plates corner.
surly you now nextlimits maxwell 1.0
and the posts in the nextlimit-forum.
i found an article over reproducing a
photo an the big surprise like maxwell
can reproduce the picture.
and… yes vray can do it too!
they don’t speak about render times.
the rendertime of my reproduce in vray
is maybe as high as the maxwell once.
16 hours with ppt and 30000 subdivs.
but i’m sure it can be faster!
Well, ppt produces caustics naturaly when you want…
Now , what about saving the solution after some time, while its still very grainy,
and making the rest fast and clean with i-map…
should be much faster , shouldnt it ?
thats what makes vray better. You get good results, but you also can tweak the immage to make it also with deadlines, which are killing bad for maxwell.
another tiny script i prepared is a lightcache/ppt sample size and shading rate calculator.
In ppt mode (sample size 1 pixel, or 0,0 in the vray panel) it allows to select the final shading rate for the image (the calculations about the image size are taken care of, ofc ourse).
So one could do crops of a ppt, see at what shading rate it looks clean enough, set that shading rate, and set the final render off, knowing exactly what quality it will give.
Which alone improved my rendertimes dramatically, particularly as i never reached again the insane subdivs amounts i used to, which went mostly wasted…
eric and percy, its not an error. Its actually correct. If you see the photo, its happening there too. Its glare, as maxwell’s will call it, or as I would say light scaterring in side the lenz, remember my post on it?
i’d have to agree with percy: it feels like their overboasted unbiased noise reduction does something VERY similar to an area filter reconstruction…
Which, guess what, VRay doesn’t need for ppt.
Who’s the unbiased here?
Here is the samples calculator i spoke about.
Be patient with me as this too is VERY ropey (doesn’t read current setting, needs a render to refresh the rendersizes and so on. all the bells and whistles aren’t on yet…), while doing the job.
I’ll move it to the standard place @ studiodim.it on monday.
Jose said he added some blur in photoshop because the maxwell output was too sharp. I didn’t notice whether he posted the original output or not. It is certainly pertinent information.
Perhaps the Vray render could be put alongside the photo and m~r render at the same size for a better comparison.
There you go.
Sharp as in noisy, i take it.
With all the bishbosh about the phisically correct, they have to blur it?
Surely a touch of DoF would take care of a sharp image…
I am sure you can cut a lot the rendertimes of a CLEAN ppt, if you do “some blur in photoshop”.
Correct me if i am wrong, it seems to me that it’s a tad beside the point of having maxwell in the first place :lol:
ahh my bad…yes I didnt see that.
I also want to add that the bleed from the light on the sealing of the cornell is much more correct in vray then it is in maxwell. In maxwell its way blown out.
what im seeing strange in vray, minor thing but, highlite on the ball is happening twice. I take one is the actual hightlite the other is the specular highlite…?
