Digital Art Zone

 
   
5 of 10
5
3Delight Discussion
Posted: 28 September 2012 05:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1860
Joined  2006-02-17
adacey - 28 September 2012 05:24 AM
Kendall Sears - 27 September 2012 07:40 PM

Please read the 3rd sentence of my post that you quoted as well as the 2nd to last paragraph.  You will see that all of the points of your rebuttal falls well within those statements.

I’ll restate the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph and stop there: “In short, any renderer (with enough effort) can replicate the results of any other, barring deliberate design limitations.”

Hi Kendall, wasn’t trying to start a flame war or anything, I completely agree that a lot of it comes down to what you’re familiar with and the skills that you bring to the render. I’d dabbled in 3-d in the late 90s and then spent the time since then pursuing photography so my understanding of lighting comes from the photo world. For me, using Lux feels a lot more natural because I can setup the lights the way I’d expect to light it for a photo shoot and get results that I’d expect to see. For me, I can get to the lighting results I’d like to see a lot more quickly than doing it in 3Delight but that’s a matter of where my experience lies. And note, I’m talking about scene setup time, not render times here.

That said, there’s been a few times where either for the look, resources available, or some other factor I’ve used 3Delight instead. I remember one time where I was trying to use IBL for a scene and just couldn’t get the lighting to look like what I wanted. In that case, switching to the LDP2 based lighting that was included with the scene prop I was using produced results I was happier with. But, when I’m setting up my own lighting in 3Delight I find that I often run smack up against the limitations of the renderer and all of the “fakes” that I have to do to make things look real (like recreating bounce off of the floor/walls). I’ll admit that I’ve not had much of a chance to really dig into UE2 and it seems like some of its options, like GI, address some of this.

The only thing I was trying to achieve in my posts was to clear up some apparent misconceptions in your posts. You’d mentioned that physically based renderers can’t do cinematic lighting because there’s usually more lighting in movies. My response was that’s not true, you simply have to light the scene the same way as you’d light a movie. I think this is fairly obvious given how physically based renderers work. You can’t expect it to produce results that require additional lighting in real life without using similar additional lighting. That’s not a limitation, that’s a feature (arguably the main feature).

And I agree with you in the fact that these things “can” be done.  The context of the discussion was “in production.”  Whether we like it or not, one of the criteria for determining the “worth” of a technology is how it either “advances the art” or “improves the utility” of the processes.  In production, current, emphasis on current, unbiased renderers do neither.  For the tinkerer, or for those wanting to look at the new methodologies, they are great.  For those trying to get things done, not so much.  Keep in mind that in a production environment that it isn’t just the “ease of setting physical light” that matters, it is matching the current lighting in a scene that matters.  In the case where one is adding SFX to a scene with live action, unbiased rendering, so far, has proven to be less than useful.  Currently, this is the lion’s share of CG work that gets done.

There are limitations of the current generation of unbiased renderers that make simulating specific types of effects either impractical, or impossible (for the software.)  The base tech is sound, the implementations are immature.  As I stated, this will change.  In the case of production pipelines, the question will be whether the “best” of the unbiased work will be folded into Renderman thus leaving the pure unbiased rendering packages languishing.  So far, that has been the case with other rendering tech.

Kendall

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11

All I know for my experience lux is giving me better results lets compare if we dare 3Delight http://fav.me/d4os8py  Lux http://fav.me/d5fpgum

Maybe its because I am more of a basic user but there you have it…

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1860
Joined  2006-02-17
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 06:51 AM

All I know for my experience lux is giving me better results lets compare if we dare 3Delight http://fav.me/d4os8py  Lux http://fav.me/d5fpgum

Maybe its because I am more of a basic user but there you have it…

You’ve used different light intensities, angles, and colors.  Actually, I prefer the 3DL version, the light looks more appropriate for the shadows. And the plastic on the radio looks more like the “powder pink” used in those types of items. 

In the 3DL version, you didn’t change your lighting model in Studio from “Plastic” to “Skin” for your girls.  This is no different from not setting the material in Reality. It also looks like your “shading rate” is set too high.  This is what is causing the noise in the metal post.  It looks like your rate is set at 1 or higher.  Try setting the rate to 0.2 or so.

It’s just a lack of knowledge or effort in setting the base settings for 3DL in this case.  For this scene, the amount of effort for 3DL vs Lux would be a wash.  The settings for the Studio Materials vs Reality Settings for Lux would pretty much be a 1:1 for this one.  The lack of discernible shadows in your Lux render really distracts from the image as a whole.

Kendall

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11
Kendall Sears - 28 September 2012 07:32 AM
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 06:51 AM

All I know for my experience lux is giving me better results lets compare if we dare 3Delight http://fav.me/d4os8py  Lux http://fav.me/d5fpgum

Maybe its because I am more of a basic user but there you have it…

You’ve used different light intensities, angles, and colors.  Actually, I prefer the 3DL version, the light looks more appropriate for the shadows. And the plastic on the radio looks more like the “powder pink” used in those types of items. 

In the 3DL version, you didn’t change your lighting model in Studio from “Plastic” to “Skin” for your girls.  This is no different from not setting the material in Reality. It also looks like your “shading rate” is set too high.  This is what is causing the noise in the metal post.  It looks like your rate is set at 1 or higher.  Try setting the rate to 0.2 or so.

It’s just a lack of knowledge or effort in setting the base settings for 3DL in this case.  For this scene, the amount of effort for 3DL vs Lux would be a wash.  The settings for the Studio Materials vs Reality Settings for Lux would pretty much be a 1:1 for this one.  The lack of discernible shadows in your Lux render really distracts from the image as a whole.

Kendall

See now your assuming things & why we dont ASS U ME! My shading rate has been set 0.2 I learned that a long time ago.  Even my fans / clients like the Lux version is better. Perhaps it is based on my skill who knows anyhoo this is a 3delight thread so get back to it later…

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1860
Joined  2006-02-17
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 08:16 AM
Kendall Sears - 28 September 2012 07:32 AM
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 06:51 AM

All I know for my experience lux is giving me better results lets compare if we dare 3Delight http://fav.me/d4os8py  Lux http://fav.me/d5fpgum

Maybe its because I am more of a basic user but there you have it…

You’ve used different light intensities, angles, and colors.  Actually, I prefer the 3DL version, the light looks more appropriate for the shadows. And the plastic on the radio looks more like the “powder pink” used in those types of items. 

In the 3DL version, you didn’t change your lighting model in Studio from “Plastic” to “Skin” for your girls.  This is no different from not setting the material in Reality. It also looks like your “shading rate” is set too high.  This is what is causing the noise in the metal post.  It looks like your rate is set at 1 or higher.  Try setting the rate to 0.2 or so.

It’s just a lack of knowledge or effort in setting the base settings for 3DL in this case.  For this scene, the amount of effort for 3DL vs Lux would be a wash.  The settings for the Studio Materials vs Reality Settings for Lux would pretty much be a 1:1 for this one.  The lack of discernible shadows in your Lux render really distracts from the image as a whole.

Kendall

See now your assuming things & why we dont ASS U ME! My shading rate has been set 0.2 I learned that a long time ago.  Even my fans / clients like the Lux version is better. Perhaps it is based on my skill who knows anyhoo this is a 3delight thread so get back to it later…

No, I didn’t assume.  I said it looks like the effect from a high shading rate (see above).  Completely different.  To illustrate my point (and to show that I didn’t assume) look at the excerpt from your 3DL render included below.  You have a metallic “pole” here with a level of reflectivity.  Going by the amount of light reflected to the camera from the pole, the reflectivity is high enough that the wood grain/color from the table should be visible in the lower portion of the back side of the pole (angle of incidence).  Instead, what is reflected is noise generated by a lack of detail provided to the rendering engine.  The most common reason for this effect is a high shading rate—where the pixel incidence is too sparse for the reflection to be added to the mix.  Another reason would be because the number of reflections is too low, but in this case, there is enough bounces available for the grain->pole.  Now, let’s look at the base flange.  Again, we see that there is light reflection, yet there is no indication of the excess light shining on the pole in the flange.  This is another effect that could be caused by a shading rate issue.  However, this could also be caused by a bounce rate of 1 on the rays, or the use of shadow mapped light instead of raytraced light.  But in order for me to have made a call on this WOULD have been for me to assume what type of setting you had on your light.  That I was not willing to do.

As you can see, I did not *assume* anything.  In fact, I brought up BOTH of your renders onto my screens side-by-side and compared them in detail.

What your clients think is the important thing.  You asked for a comparison, so I compared.  The scenes were so different that comparison could only be done in the most minimalist manner.  I provided my subjective preference based on certain specific qualities of the renders, which I laid out in the original.  All of which were technical in nature.  I did not consider “composition.”

Kendall

Image Attachments
Screenshot-54.png
 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 11:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11

Too much detail I just go with what works thanks like I said its your thread your a 3Delight guy I get it. Viva la difference!

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1860
Joined  2006-02-17
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 11:23 AM

In any case I like others have mentioned prefer what Lux does thank you.. I dont care if the hair on a nut is not at the right angle or does not have the 0000.0 follicle refection at the tip.

And that is perfectly fine.  Lux is a perfectly fine render engine, for what it does.  I don’t think anyone has said otherwise.

Kendall

 

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11
Kendall Sears - 28 September 2012 11:43 AM
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 11:23 AM

In any case I like others have mentioned prefer what Lux does thank you.. I dont care if the hair on a nut is not at the right angle or does not have the 0000.0 follicle refection at the tip.

And that is perfectly fine.  Lux is a perfectly fine render engine, for what it does.  I don’t think anyone has said otherwise.

Kendall

Maybe if I tweaked more the materials like I got used to doing in Reality who knows I guess I will find out when a future client chooses my lower priced option. I will try to change the people’s setting to skin that seems like good advice. I am generally just a render out of the box and adjust when needed type of guy but it suits my purpose for what i use the hobby for… Thanks again for the PM but it sounds like its not just a matter of exporting the files and rendering so I will use the internal engine if and when I need to render 3Delight. I ran a quick one of this current lux scene yesterday wit one UE pre set light http://fav.me/d5g7ht1 one thing I did see an improvement on was less blotchiness without the need to exceed the occlusion samples limits to get rid of them lie before.

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1860
Joined  2006-02-17
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 11:23 AM

Too much detail I just go with what works thanks like I said its your thread your a 3Delight guy I get it. Viva la difference!

No, I am not a “3Delight” guy.  I will use what is needed to get the job done.  I own and use Maya/MentalRay, Maya/3Delight, MessiahStudio, Carrara, DS/3Delight, DS/Lux, Bryce, Poser/Firefly(Tempest), PoV, LuxRender, BlenderCycles, Vue, and several others.

It just so happens that here, in the DAZ forums, the rendering choices are:  3Delight and Lux.  Soon Octane will be an option when the plugin is finished and Octane leaves beta.  So in the DAZ forums, I discuss what is germane.  It would be inappropriate to discuss MentalRay or Messiah here.  Since the vast majority of DS users use the built-in 3Delight, most of the discussions use that as the point of reference.

I will be happy to discuss LuxRender in LuxRender threads.  I have been a fan of LuxRender long before it was useful in DS, back when all it could eat was text files.

Kendall

 

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11
Kendall Sears - 28 September 2012 12:08 PM
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 11:23 AM

Too much detail I just go with what works thanks like I said its your thread your a 3Delight guy I get it. Viva la difference!

No, I am not a “3Delight” guy.  I will use what is needed to get the job done.  I own and use Maya/MentalRay, Maya/3Delight, MessiahStudio, Carrara, DS/3Delight, DS/Lux, Bryce, Poser/Firefly(Tempest), PoV, LuxRender, BlenderCycles, Vue, and several others.

It just so happens that here, in the DAZ forums, the rendering choices are:  3Delight and Lux.  Soon Octane will be an option when the plugin is finished and Octane leaves beta.  So in the DAZ forums, I discuss what is germane.  It would be inappropriate to discuss MentalRay or Messiah here.  Since the vast majority of DS users use the built-in 3Delight, most of the discussions use that as the point of reference.

I will be happy to discuss LuxRender in LuxRender threads.  I have been a fan of LuxRender long before it was useful in DS, back when all it could eat was text files.

Kendall

As I mentioned above it is a 3Delight thread and it has been very useful Octane looks promising but I have an ATI card I have many renders that I was pleased with as well using 3 Delight my personal evolution has been png layers together fake all post work in PS then to LDP2 full rendering then UE and now Reality

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1860
Joined  2006-02-17
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 11:52 AM
Kendall Sears - 28 September 2012 11:43 AM
Bobvan - 28 September 2012 11:23 AM

In any case I like others have mentioned prefer what Lux does thank you.. I dont care if the hair on a nut is not at the right angle or does not have the 0000.0 follicle refection at the tip.

And that is perfectly fine.  Lux is a perfectly fine render engine, for what it does.  I don’t think anyone has said otherwise.

Kendall

Maybe if I tweaked more the materials like I got used to doing in Reality who knows I guess I will find out when a future client chooses my lower priced option. I will try to change the people’s setting to skin that seems like good advice. I am generally just a render out of the box and adjust when needed type of guy but it suits my purpose for what i use the hobby for… Thanks again for the PM but it sounds like its not just a matter of exporting the files and rendering so I will use the internal engine if and when I need to render 3Delight. I ran a quick one of this current lux scene yesterday wit one UE pre set light http://fav.me/d5g7ht1 one thing I did see an improvement on was less blotchiness without the need to exceed the occlusion samples limits to get rid of them lie before.

Working with the materials is always a good thing to do regardless.  Of course, you’ll want to use those materials optimised for the render engine being targeted.  Paolo’s Reality does a good job of converting base settings to Lux, but the conversion is nowhere near as good as using materials optimized for Lux.

Similarly, many models used in DS have materials that are set for Poser/Firefly and not DS/3Delight.  Using models “out of the box” is likely to get you a render that is of poor quality simply because the model was not set up correctly.  Almost every model will load into DS with the lighting model set to “Plastic” and with Textures/Bump/Displacement set to Firefly’s limited settings.  In order to get access to the real power of DS, one has to scrap the extremely limited Poser settings and load in a more expanded surface set.  Whether that is UserSurface(2), (E)HSS, or some custom expanded set.  Once one is loaded the material settings really open up.  The options abound, and many look at the number of options and their eyes glaze over.  The abilities of DS haven’t even been scratched.  The whole world of Renderman shaders is out there.

As examples, look at the SFX in the Harry Potter movies, X-Men Movies, Superman Returns, District9, Twilight Eclipse, the Hulk Movie, Fantastic4, Narnia.  DS has access to all of that ability through 3DL.  Either internally, or through the standalone.

Kendall

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11

Yeah I have read many topics on it…rebuilding maps ect…

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13

Ok…I did the same scene, three different renders…

1st 3Delight, DS3A, internal…took 7 1/2 hrs to render…
2nd Lux 1 hr SPPM…needs some materials work to be ‘perfect’
3rd 3Delight, stand alone, DS4.5 export 1 hr 10 mins
not run DS4.5 internal (will run later)

And that internal render was with ‘shadows off’ on the hair, but on in the standalone!

Image Attachments
Render_57.jpggirl4.jpgrender.jpg
 Signature 

1432 old posts

My ShareCG gallery.

Just because something costs a lot, doesn’t mean it’s the best…

It just means it’s expensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2302
Joined  2010-12-18
mjc1016 - 28 September 2012 12:45 PM

Ok…I did the same scene, three different renders…

1st 3Delight, DS3A, internal…took 7 1/2 hrs to render…
2nd Lux 1 hr SPPM…needs some materials work to be ‘perfect’
3rd 3Delight, stand alone, DS4.5 export 1 hr 10 mins
not run DS4.5 internal (will run later)

And that internal render was with ‘shadows off’ on the hair, but on in the standalone!

Thanks for that, im curious about the DS4.5 render time myself, that will tell the tale for me. Hopefully not 7.5 hours though! Will be nice to see how much faster than DS3A (i hope)

 Signature 

My deviantArt Pinup Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1404
Joined  2009-09-11

Put it this way this took approx 3 hours in Lux http://fav.me/d5g8b2a and would take just over 15 minutes with 1 UE pre light… Of course the outcome will be different but the UE does not look all that bad either I just grew some patience LOL

The sparks are post worked thats a Shemar Moore face genned character I created ...

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 10
5