Digital Art Zone

 
   
3 of 4
3
Pros and Cons of Carrara DOF Vs. Postworked DOF
Posted: 10 February 2013 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  503
Joined  2003-10-09
Garstor - 10 February 2013 12:43 PM
Dartanbeck - 10 February 2013 12:35 PM

Man… DOF Pro currently doesn’t support 64 bit PS.

Dang! I didn’t notice that…I was seriously considering buying it.

Dartanbeck - 10 February 2013 12:35 PM

I’m certainly not saying that Post work is wrong - that’s not my message at all! Carrara provides some pretty great tools for that, thanks to the fine developers here, at Daz3d! Well, and their predecessors.

I agree; that’s far too limiting. Right tool for the right job at the right time.

64-bit support was added to Lenscare a few years ago, another DOF plugin that some folks I know like:

http://www.frischluft.com/

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  239
Joined  2006-01-21

That looks good. Cheaper too.

DOF Pro works in PSP and Elements (both 32 bit of course), which usually means it’ll work in GIMP too. Download the demo and try,

A question just for my own amusement, why do you have 64bit PS when you’re not really familiar with it? Yes I am jealous.

Here is an example of the difference between raytraced and filtered DOF in Carrara. I know which I prefer to look at but it takes 16x longer to render. I’ve only really used it on images as straightforward and as small as this where I can balance it against an equivalent time saving in post work.

Image Attachments
littly_tipply_by_roguepilot-d4tkx5b.jpgLittly_Tipply.jpg
 Signature 

http://roguepilot.deviantart.com/
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?username=RoguePilot
http://www.ShareCG.com/pf/full_uploads.php?pf_user_name=RoguePilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1387
Joined  2011-01-03
RoguePilot - 10 February 2013 02:02 PM

A question just for my own amusement, why do you have 64bit PS when you’re not really familiar with it? Yes I am jealous.

Because it is Just Not Right running 32-bit on 64-bit! tongue rolleye

Or, more likely, I’ve been scarred with memories of people running 32-bit SQL Server 2000 on 64-bit hardware and the weird behaviours that exhibited…

No doubt that DOF adds a realism to a render no matter how it is acheived.

 Signature 

- Garstor
Australian-Canadian currently trapped in Texas (maintaining sanity with doses of Carrara, LightWave and PhotoShop)

My 3D art Flickr page for final or near-final images
My 3D art Flickr page for work-in-progress or experiments

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2013 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  409
Joined  2008-08-29
RoguePilot - 10 February 2013 02:02 PM

Here is an example of the difference between raytraced and filtered DOF in Carrara. I know which I prefer to look at but it takes 16x longer to render. I’ve only really used it on images as straightforward and as small as this where I can balance it against an equivalent time saving in post work.

I like your image, good design!

 Signature 

Swamp Living Never Felt So Good

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 02:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15

(post deleted because I know it would just make everyone like really upset…)

smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 05:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7667
Joined  2009-07-13

is it just me or do depth of field images just look like someone had the f-stop set wrong on their camera and too slow a film emulsion for the lighting situation?
I get great depth of field in RL now that I need reading glasses!!
lol! I am SO just not arty enough and simply use blurry background images with shadowcatcher in my videos!


btw Rogue Pilot, I like the first one. . . . . . hope that was the raytraced 16x longer one tongue wink

Joe, you did not have to go and delete your Carrara render!

 Signature 

WARNING do not click tongue rolleye what video horrors will be seen if you do cannot be unseen.
my render thread
        never forget
A Drows Walk
Jaderail is at it again

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5452
Joined  2006-08-27

RoguePilot, like Wendy, I like the first image better. I am assuming that’s the Raytraced DOF?

 Signature 

I find it somewhat liberating not to be encumbered by accuracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  787
Joined  2003-10-09
wendy♥catz - 11 February 2013 05:07 AM

is it just me or do depth of field images just look like someone had the f-stop set wrong on their camera and too slow a film emulsion for the lighting situation?

I don’t know about still images, but I do think Carrara’s DOF has an application in animations.  I like to render one image with, say, the good guy in focus in the foreground, and the background way out of focus.  Then a second image with, say, the bad guy in focus in the background and the good guy out of focus in the foreground.  Some call this a “background reveal”, used for dramatic effect.  And you can use a dissonant sound ... but I digress ...

If you don’t move the camera and the characters are not animated, you only need the two frame renders, then use a crossfade in the video editor.  Simple stuff, but sometimes effective.

I haven’t tried a postwork approach to this, but I guess it could be done.

cool hmm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 01:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5452
Joined  2006-08-27
Steve K - 11 February 2013 01:33 PM
wendy♥catz - 11 February 2013 05:07 AM

is it just me or do depth of field images just look like someone had the f-stop set wrong on their camera and too slow a film emulsion for the lighting situation?

I don’t know about still images, but I do think Carrara’s DOF has an application in animations.  I like to render one image with, say, the good guy in focus in the foreground, and the background way out of focus.  Then a second image with, say, the bad guy in focus in the background and the good guy out of focus in the foreground.  Some call this a “background reveal”, used for dramatic effect.  And you can use a dissonant sound ... but I digress ...

If you don’t move the camera and the characters are not animated, you only need the two frame renders, then use a crossfade in the video editor.  Simple stuff, but sometimes effective.

I haven’t tried a postwork approach to this, but I guess it could be done.

cool hmm


The built in DOF may work better for animations where the viewer’s eye is more focused on the animation and may only be peripherally aware of the effect.

 Signature 

I find it somewhat liberating not to be encumbered by accuracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 02:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  239
Joined  2006-01-21
wendy♥catz - 11 February 2013 05:07 AM

is it just me or do depth of field images just look like someone had the f-stop set wrong on their camera and too slow a film emulsion for the lighting situation?
I get great depth of field in RL now that I need reading glasses!!
lol! I am SO just not arty enough and simply use blurry background images with shadowcatcher in my videos!


btw Rogue Pilot, I like the first one. . . . . . hope that was the raytraced 16x longer one tongue wink

Joe, you did not have to go and delete your Carrara render!

Other way around I’m afraid. I prefer the second one. Just goes to show.

DOF is an inevitable consequence of the way a camera lens works in Real Life.
It happens in the human eye too but the brain processes it out. (Best render engine in the world). You have to pay attention to what you’re not looking at to see it.

So, for those seeking reality based rendering, it’s not an artistic choice, it’s required.

 Signature 

http://roguepilot.deviantart.com/
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?username=RoguePilot
http://www.ShareCG.com/pf/full_uploads.php?pf_user_name=RoguePilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  787
Joined  2003-10-09
evilproducer - 11 February 2013 01:45 PM

The built in DOF may work better for animations where the viewer’s eye is more focused on the animation and may only be peripherally aware of the effect.

I think that is correct.  The eye does not have time to compare the still image to the “real world”, but the effect can be ... ummm, effective.  I used it in this animation contest entry that people (including judges, for once) seemed to like (the “reveal” is at the 5:00 point, the “surprise” character is the non-humanoid just to the right of mid-frame):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN1pXYvEqIc&list=UUlMEK10oWdfqx6NaNAGJtFA&index=16

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  409
Joined  2008-08-29
evilproducer - 11 February 2013 01:45 PM

The built in DOF may work better for animations where the viewer’s eye is more focused on the animation and may only be peripherally aware of the effect.

I really don’t see how. If you are using the ray traced render it will be much slower than using after effects and for animation the quality is less important than with a still—its the overall effect that matters. With a still, that’s all you’ve got. The viewer sees that same frame, and keeps seeing it, and seeing it, and seeing it without change instead of only seeing it for a fraction of a second.

And if you don’t use the ray traced DOF then it’s quick, but what you get is a pre-dialed effect so you lose any control like you might use in post work.

 Signature 

Swamp Living Never Felt So Good

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 07:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  787
Joined  2003-10-09
thoromyr - 11 February 2013 06:42 PM
evilproducer - 11 February 2013 01:45 PM

The built in DOF may work better for animations where the viewer’s eye is more focused on the animation and may only be peripherally aware of the effect.

I really don’t see how. If you are using the ray traced render it will be much slower than using after effects and for animation the quality is less important than with a still—its the overall effect that matters. With a still, that’s all you’ve got. The viewer sees that same frame, and keeps seeing it, and seeing it, and seeing it without change instead of only seeing it for a fraction of a second.

And if you don’t use the ray traced DOF then it’s quick, but what you get is a pre-dialed effect so you lose any control like you might use in post work.

I’m not sure I understand your comment, it sounds pretty much like what evilproducer is saying. 

In any case, if there is no camera motion or animation, you can render only the two frames and use a crossfade in the video editor (as I mentioned a couple of messages back).  Admittedly this is fairly limiting ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  409
Joined  2008-08-29
Steve K - 11 February 2013 07:22 PM
thoromyr - 11 February 2013 06:42 PM
evilproducer - 11 February 2013 01:45 PM

The built in DOF may work better for animations where the viewer’s eye is more focused on the animation and may only be peripherally aware of the effect.

I really don’t see how. If you are using the ray traced render it will be much slower than using after effects and for animation the quality is less important than with a still—its the overall effect that matters. With a still, that’s all you’ve got. The viewer sees that same frame, and keeps seeing it, and seeing it, and seeing it without change instead of only seeing it for a fraction of a second.

And if you don’t use the ray traced DOF then it’s quick, but what you get is a pre-dialed effect so you lose any control like you might use in post work.

I’m not sure I understand your comment, it sounds pretty much like what evilproducer is saying.

Except where its not smile

He suggests that the Carrara built in DOF is okay for animation when I disagree. For animation you would want to use post working, preferably something like after effects, though even photoshop batch mode would work. I then gave a detailed explanation of why Carrara’s internal DOF is not suitable for animation.

Carrara’s ray traced DOF is suitable for stills where quality is desired. There’s a lot of “eye of the behold” stuff going on around here and that’s fine. If someone dislikes Carrara’s ray traced DOF, great. If its too slow for them, great. But it is only *really* slow for very large renders (say 6000x4000, or larger like Dart was doing) or when significant blurring is over a significant portion of the image.

For some scenes the added time cost really isn’t that much, and to get equivalent results in post would require doing the DOF effect from scratch. For example, the image and depth map I posted earlier in this thread. The depth map has basically no information (almost entirely black or white, very little grey) so any post work using it is crippled from the start. In that particular image the DOF effect significantly helped the final image—not just a measure of believability with it having such a range of depth, but because the texture map for the tree wasn’t really intended for anything that close. Nor was the tree: some creative displacement mapping and adding noise to the diffuse channel really helped.

Steve K - 11 February 2013 07:22 PM

In any case, if there is no camera motion or animation, you can render only the two frames and use a crossfade in the video editor (as I mentioned a couple of messages back).  Admittedly this is fairly limiting ...

Your specific case could, in principle, be handled by one image plus a depth map and some work in post. Not something I’ve done, but that is exactly the kind of thing post work is good for (doing blur for different depths in the map in different frames).

 Signature 

Swamp Living Never Felt So Good

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 February 2013 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1059
Joined  2007-10-15

It’s easy to support an unending argument about what is “suitable” or “okay” in an effect when you have no standard to compare it to. And that’s what typically happens here. People have differing views on what “good” is, so there is no right answer.

Again, what people fail to do is try to match results to a real world example. Never once seen it done here. Which means there’s always a “he said, she said” argument.

Some are fine with Vaseline. Some are fine with some kind of fuzziness. Some want a particular effect given by a particular type of lens that makes the viewer feel a certain thing. Some want a lot of control in their effect so that they can not only reproduce reality but enhance it. Some don’t mind 6 hour renders. Some like playing with software so the result doesn’t really matter. 

Until people decide what “good” is, then everyone is right, and everyone is an expert. And also nobody is right.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3