Still waiting

1246712

Comments

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,300
    edited December 1969

    @ carfor

    the success of many renderers is mainly due to materials presets, as Kevin pointed out. As such, octane has a huge db, arion has few presets, octane is wanted by all, arion not yet, nonetheless the quality is very similar and price too. If you want to be a cg artist and put your talent in your work, then sweat on carrara engine and you'll have your satisfactions. if only carrara had a good data base of shaders such as vray or vue (both biased) we would not be here to complain about carrara engine.
    attached are some examples about afternoon lighting setups where you can see that the render is realistic on materials that are convincing; the example above is fully IL, the bottom one is AO only. Rendering time is about 15 minutes and 7 minutes respectively.
    hope it helps

    http://www.adrive.com/public/UhcwSz/PM atmos.pdf

    Very nice examples of different time of day lighting in Carrara and nice render times!

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 365
    edited February 2013

    carfor said:
    Well It seems people have been here so long, arguing, that they've forgotten the main points.

    1. Very few people can get good realistic renders . { ie a handful of people - who are LONG GONE - took the
    settings with them. }

    a. { Sorry Holly, that does not look realistic to me at all } check Reality below

    2. Poor renders are being blamed on materials,, where as if you render in cycles / octane with NO materials,
    it still looks real { but of course just real geometry sitting there. }

    check reality image :

    http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/293/3/3/white_gaga_by_elianeck-d5idnvb.jpg

    Say what?

    Have you seen how crappy most Reality renders look mate? People go ooh and ahh and pat each other on the back because they own Reality but the truth is 99% of the posts in the Reality threads look awful. Which is why I don't bother looking at it anymore.

    Reality like Octane is a tool that is useful only if you know what you're doing. I own licensed copies of both and I can tell you straight that it's not just click and render. You need to know a bit about lighting and materials to get good results. Anyone can produce a clay render but very few people can create true art with those tools. Reality does make lighting easier but only in the sense of setting it up, not doing the job for you. And you still need to fine tune materials for best results.

    The other point you're missing is that both Reality and Octane are very limited actually. Yes, both are great tools for realistic renders. But that's all they're good for. When it comes to art most often people don't want or need realism. You want to be able to create any image your imagination can conjure up. How about a swamp with mist over the water and some eerie lights shining in the background? Or a wizard calling down a lighning storm on his foes while a catapult hurls a flaming barrel of oil at him? Good luck doing that in Reality or Octane.

    Art is not about settings and materials. It's about being able to create the image that is in your head. It's up to you to find the right tool for the job. Carrara, Bryce and Studio are all capable of incredible realism when used by experts. Reality and Octane are both capable of incredibly bad renders when used by beginners. The tool does not make the artist.

    Post edited by Harry Dresden on
  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,300
    edited February 2013

    :red: Hmmm. After just now visiting the bugtracker I'd say we are back underway... There are a ton of new (unaddressed) reports, but there is activity from DAZ side....

    I'm not holding my breath for that announcement, but I'm also satisfied the private beta has continued at least a version or two since the last public beta.

    Thanks for checking and letting us know, Holly! I would think the good January sales of C8Pro helped get things rolling again.

    Post edited by Kevin Sanderson on
  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,300
    edited December 1969

    carfor said:
    Well It seems people have been here so long, arguing, that they've forgotten the main points.

    1. Very few people can get good realistic renders . { ie a handful of people - who are LONG GONE - took the
    settings with them. }

    a. { Sorry Holly, that does not look realistic to me at all } check Reality below

    2. Poor renders are being blamed on materials,, where as if you render in cycles / octane with NO materials,
    it still looks real { but of course just real geometry sitting there. }

    check reality image :

    http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/293/3/3/white_gaga_by_elianeck-d5idnvb.jpg

    Say what?

    Have you seen how crappy most Reality renders look mate? People go ooh and ahh and pat each other on the back because they own Reality but the truth is 99% of the posts in the Reality threads look awful. Which is why I don't bother looking at it anymore.

    Reality like Octane is a tool that is useful only if you know what you're doing. I own licensed copies of both and I can tell you straight that it's not just click and render. You need to know a bit about lighting and materials to get good results. Anyone can produce a clay render but very few people can create true art with those tools. Reality does make lighting easier but only in the sense of setting it up, not doing the job for you. And you still need to fine tune materials for best results.

    The other point you're missing is that both Reality and Octane are very limited actually. Yes, both are great tools for realistic renders. But that's all they're good for. When it comes to art most often people don't want or need realism. You want to be able to create any image your imagination can conjure up. How about a swamp with mist over the water and some eerie lights shining in the background? Or a wizard calling down a lighning storm on his foes while a catapult hurls a flaming barrel of oil at him? Good luck doing that in Reality or Octane.

    Art is not about settings and materials. It's about being able to create the image that is in your head. It's up to you to find the right tool for the job. Carrara, Bryce and Studio are all capable of incredible realism when used by experts. Reality and Octane are both capable of incredibly bad renders when used by beginners. The tool does not make the artist.

    I'm in agreement with you, Harry! Nice examples of what isn't easily done in the unbiased render engines.

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 14,604
    edited December 1969

    Yeah Harry,
    Like I said... Picasso's paints, man!

  • carfor-2225296carfor-2225296 Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    magaremoto

    Where carrara engine is defective imho is in the irradiance map, that does not compute bounce light rays well, especially in low lit rooms, as well as Modo or vray do: the example below, taken from the Modo gallery, seems impossible to get in carrara, even with
    IBL or emitting medium[

    Well NOW we're finally getting somewhere. Can someone note this and carve it in stone?

    Nice to see something concrete.

    [[ The cheerleading chatter in this forum tends to be more fanboyish rah, rah, rah, - than even the Blender forum { and I thought that was impossible to top - lol }]

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,300
    edited December 1969

    carfor said:
    Well It seems people have been here so long, arguing, that they've forgotten the main points.

    1. Very few people can get good realistic renders . { ie a handful of people - who are LONG GONE - took the
    settings with them. }

    a. { Sorry Holly, that does not look realistic to me at all } check Reality below

    2. Poor renders are being blamed on materials,, where as if you render in cycles / octane with NO materials,
    it still looks real { but of course just real geometry sitting there. }

    check reality image :

    http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/293/3/3/white_gaga_by_elianeck-d5idnvb.jpg

    "NO materials" is a nonsense, every shader - even simply black or white- interacts with light: they can be diffuse, specular, dielectric etc
    in a render engine they have to be finely set to be realistic: it's up to you to choose a preset or play around with the mat editor.
    Where carrara engine is defective imho is in the irradiance map, that does not compute bounce light rays well, especially in low lit rooms, as well as Modo or vray do: the example below, taken from the Modo gallery, seems impossible to get in carrara, even with
    IBL or emitting medium


    I wonder if you could get similar lighting with Anything Glows on panels.

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    I love Husnus. Ella's Deli is still fun, now and again - it isn't what it used to be though - perhaps because I grew up? Maybe it was always just... ordinary, besides the ccol robots, merry-go-round and huge ice cream selection

    They have robots serving ice cream?!?!? This I've got to see! :)

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    I know you love DAZ Dart, but D/S is still starter software with serious limitations. Some of those limitations can corrected- If you buy the plugin. There are some limitations that D/S has that no plugin can correct, short of a complete re-write of the software. D/S is fine software- For what it is. I would also remind you, that just because it says DAZ doesn't mean that it's always a winner. I've seen some awful clunkers from them before. Both in the models/figures they sell and the software they publish. I don't care what the company is, or what they sell, always look at their products with a critical eye.

    I try to look at everything with a critical eye. Skepticism is healthy.

    Honestly, in spite of his overflowing enthusiasm, I don't think Dartanbeck is that slavishly enamoured with his software. As he says; Carrara just works for him. I think that's fair. Most of us here are rational people with a reasonable outlook.

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    Hah! One of my brothers tried to order a BLT there. They said they couldn't- Jewish deli and all, so he says (in all seriousness), just give me a ham and cheese instead! :snake:

    That reminds me of my college days in Canada. I went to the Harvey's (a burger chain) with a vegetarian friend shortly after they introduced their vegetarian burger. So I ordered one with bacon. My friend didn't talk to me for the rest of the day...

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    Ahhh that Greek yogurt sauce drizzled over that expertly carved lamb on a pita with onions sliced so thin....I want a Gyro

    I just woke up, the coffee is warm in my belly, but darn it all...I want a Gyro now too!!! :long:

    That's my biggest complaint about Texas. There is very little external culture here. It is changing slowly with the demographics of my neighbourhood...but it can't hold a candle to a place like Toronto.

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    carfor said:
    [[ The cheerleading chatter in this forum tends to be more fanboyish rah, rah, rah, - than even the Blender forum { and I thought that was impossible to top - lol }]

    Oh COME ON! Seriously?

    Carrara has some of the most vitriolic and narrow-minded naysayers that I have ever seen (it's a shame that the most heavily critical / bashing threads have been deleted...otherwise I'd point you to examples). But in your eyes we can't even optimistic and happy about the software we use?

    Unfortunately, there is no smiley graphic for a facepalm. Talk about a Catch-22 situation...

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 365
    edited December 1969

    carfor said:
    magaremoto Where carrara engine is defective imho is in the irradiance map, that does not compute bounce light rays well, especially in low lit rooms, as well as Modo or vray do: the example below, taken from the Modo gallery, seems impossible to get in carrara, even with
    IBL or emitting medium[

    Well NOW we're finally getting somewhere. Can someone note this and carve it in stone?

    Nice to see something concrete.

    [[ The cheerleading chatter in this forum tends to be more fanboyish rah, rah, rah, - than even the Blender forum { and I thought that was impossible to top - lol }]

    You're just trolling now mate. How about a challenge to keep you busy. Go render us a realistic human in Reality or Octane and we'll see if you're more than just talk. In the meantime I'll just throw a Studio render together for comparison. We'll leave it to the audience to decide which looks more real. ;)

  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    How about a challenge to keep you busy. Go render us a realistic human in Reality or Octane and we'll see if you're more than just talk. In the meantime I'll just throw a Studio render together for comparison. We'll leave it to the audience to decide which looks more real. ;)

    The glove. It has been thrown down... ;)

    Seriously guys, I think that this can be a useful challenge if kept respectful. It probably deserves its own thread.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 8,964
    edited December 1969

    carfor said:
    magaremoto Where carrara engine is defective imho is in the irradiance map, that does not compute bounce light rays well, especially in low lit rooms, as well as Modo or vray do: the example below, taken from the Modo gallery, seems impossible to get in carrara, even with
    IBL or emitting medium[

    Well NOW we're finally getting somewhere. Can someone note this and carve it in stone?

    Nice to see something concrete.

    [[ The cheerleading chatter in this forum tends to be more fanboyish rah, rah, rah, - than even the Blender forum { and I thought that was impossible to top - lol }]


    I don't think anything is ready to be carved in stone. I've seen some renders that look just as good as the one referenced. The trick is knowing what you're doing! I can say for certain that image was not done by someone new to 3D. I've been using Carrara for years, and I think I've become pretty good at my lighting and shading, but I have no desire for absolute realism. Not because I don't think that Carrara's engine can't handle it, but because if I wanted absolute realism, I would grab a camera.

  • ManStanManStan Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Working from notepad so please bare with me.

    "One of the things that I notice all the time, in regards to your comment of Carrara complaints, is that there are very few people complaining about Carrara. Very few. Count ‘em. One, two… okay, two"
    Dartanbeck

    I think you are over looking most complaints get pulled, and most complainers have given up, moved on, or gotten band. You are basing you opinion on a very bias forum.

    "I’m surprise there are such nice magazines for a “dying” product."
    cartor

    Firefly has a very active fan base, the series lasted one season and has been off the air for 10 years. So your point is?

    "I think the likely scenario is that there is a small group of devs that have to divide their time between advancing the products (clearly the bulk of the time here has been D|S and Genesis) and supporting their internal I.T. stuff (i.e. these forums). As such, Carrara just doesn’t get the love we wish it did."
    Dartanbeck

    That is also an assumption on your part. You don't know that DAZ is actually doing anything or has more then 1 or 2 developers still on payroll.

    "Kinda cool though, isn’t it? Daz3d is very much unmatched in making the best versatile, morphable doll-type figures anywhere…
    And Genesis just blows away what they’ve done before - and Gen 4 is still better than what anyone else has come up with.*"

    And that has what to do with carrara development? Just because some one is the head machanic at the Ford garage doesn't mean they can work on my kowaski.

    "Bryce was rumored dead for the longest time and there was much gnashing of teeth, wailing and tearing of clothes.. and then DAZ surprised everyone with a new version and features." Kevin Sanderson

    Yes, one of there very few times I was wrong in my speculations. Still how long did that update take? How many times has DAZ updated Bryce since DAZ has had it? And what has DAZ done with it since?

    "The problem is in Carrara Galleries / youtube, etc, the GOOD Carrara Renders { my opinion} are less than 5 %. The others look
    like 3d from the 1990’s."
    carfor

    Hint, look at the average Poser or Studio gallery and you will see why. Most of the best of the carrara users have moved on to other apps. I can only speculate as to why.

    I'll agree with dartanbeck that that studio used to be an excellent support tool for carrara.

    "Personally I love Carrara’s renderer so I am not looking to move to other render engines…. I’d probably prefer to have better (deeper bitrate) control for Carrara."
    Holly

    Agree. The only issues I have with carrara's rendering is the crappy after effects for lighting.

    "I know. But buying someone the actual paints that Picasso used isn’t going to guarantee anything! lol" Dartanbeck

    Agree. Carrara already has an excellent render engine, it's just a matter of learning to use it, as it is very complex. And dependent on more then just render room set up.

    "1. Very few people can get good realistic renders" carfor

    Not true, any one can get good realistic renders right out of the box, but photo real takes a lot of work and most people don't want to put the effort in to it.

    There are 3 things that cause carrara's renders to fall flat on their face. Bad atmospherics, poor SSS, and cheap cheesy lighting after effects. Heading to carrara 9 and I am still having to deal with no volumetric lighting, that crappy cone light and aura, and SSS that will turn skin in to wax in a heart beat.

    But hey we're getting Genesis in all it's glory. :long:

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 365
    edited December 1969

    Hey, I love a good challenge. It exercises the brain muscles! Lol.

    How about this - I'll create a thread in the commons and of course everyone is welcome to take part. There won't be any deadlines or prizes but just a place to show off what you can do with your software of choice. What do you think?

  • ManStanManStan Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hey, I love a good challenge. It exercises the brain muscles! Lol.

    How about this - I'll create a thread in the commons and of course everyone is welcome to take part. There won't be any deadlines or prizes but just a place to show off what you can do with your software of choice. What do you think?

    Give it a try. I have well over a hundred projects in the works, I can always pull one up and finish it. But most of my stuff is just keeping my hand in. I've gotten quite rusty with Hex because I don't use it often.

  • wetcircuitwetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    carfor said:
    Well It seems people have been here so long, arguing, that they've forgotten the main points.

    1. Very few people can get good realistic renders .

    a. { Sorry Holly, that does not look realistic to me at all } check Reality below

    check reality image :

    http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/293/3/3/white_gaga_by_elianeck-d5idnvb.jpg


    Hahaha! Ok sure my pic is not photoreal, as was said I prefer non-photoreal... That kind of render you posted does not interest me at all (I assume it is not yours?). My image renders in under 2min, and uses no GI. The maps I used are under 2000px. *Your* renders are where?

    :smirk:

    People should put their renders where their mouths are. :lol:

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Posts: 365
    edited December 1969
  • wetcircuitwetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969


    This ought to be good. ;-)
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 8,964
    edited December 1969

    Hey, I love a good challenge. It exercises the brain muscles! Lol.

    How about this - I'll create a thread in the commons and of course everyone is welcome to take part. There won't be any deadlines or prizes but just a place to show off what you can do with your software of choice. What do you think?


    The real challenge will be keeping it visible in the Commons! :lol:

  • magaremotomagaremoto Posts: 1,020
    edited December 1969

    @ kevin,
    thanks, actually I have just changed some settings in M4 and V4 shaders and played around with color chips.

    Glowing panels are very handful and useful in carrara and I am using them all the time but I don't think to be so talented to reproduce an image like that in carrara it's my limit.

    by the way fryrender now is being named arion and it is as powerful as octane indeed, I love both.

    the following is a quick comparison between thea unbiased engine and carrara engine, both very easy to set up: as you can see the main difference is in the handling of ambient and sky lights : thea mix it automatically like all the unbiased engines, carrara needs of some adjustment (look at the shadows) but if you have a reference it can be successfully done: it's only a matter of "artistic" skills and refinement

    thea.jpg
    800 x 570 - 369K
    car.jpg
    1000 x 699 - 442K
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 30,261
    edited December 1969

    Art Studio is a better place for keeping things visible, but doesn't get as much traffic

  • wetcircuitwetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @ kevin,
    thanks, actually I have just changed some settings in M4 and V4 shaders and played around with color chips.

    Glowing panels are very handful and useful in carrara and I am using them all the time but I don't think to be so talented to reproduce an image like that in carrara it's my limit.

    by the way fryrender now is being named arion and it is as powerful as octane indeed, I love both.

    the following is a quick comparison between thea unbiased engine and carrara engine, both very easy to set up: as you can see the main difference is in the handling of ambient and sky lights : thea mix it automatically like all the unbiased engines, carrara needs of some adjustment (look at the shadows) but if you have a reference it can be successfully done: it's only a matter of "artistic" skills and refinement


    Top one looks better. What are the render times?
  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    Hey, I love a good challenge. It exercises the brain muscles! Lol.

    How about this - I'll create a thread in the commons and of course everyone is welcome to take part. There won't be any deadlines or prizes but just a place to show off what you can do with your software of choice. What do you think?

    Ugh...The Commons...

    Sorry, that's not really fair is it? Given the nature of the challenge; that probably is the best place for the thread. Honestly, Carrara Discussion is where I hang-out...pretty much 100% of the time.

    It sounds elitist, but I really think that it is the name itself - The Commons - that makes me not want to hang-out there... ;)

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,300
    edited February 2013

    @magaremoto - They both look good, just the difference of what would be an f-stop or different shutter speed with a camera. The top one pops a bit more.

    Post edited by Kevin Sanderson on
  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    Top one looks better. What are the render times?

    Agreed. The bottom one appears washed out or overexposed.

    I'm curious about render times too - especially with Holly's statement about her recent render taking ~2 minutes to complete.

  • wetcircuitwetcircuit Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Garstor said:

    Ugh...The Commons...
    ...

    It sounds elitist, but I really think that it is the name itself - The Commons - that makes me not want to hang-out there... ;)


    LOL yeah I'll never see it...
  • GarstorGarstor Posts: 1,411
    edited December 1969

    I don't think anything is ready to be carved in stone. I've seen some renders that look just as good as the one referenced. The trick is knowing what you're doing! I can say for certain that image was not done by someone new to 3D. I've been using Carrara for years, and I think I've become pretty good at my lighting and shading, but I have no desire for absolute realism. Not because I don't think that Carrara's engine can't handle it, but because if I wanted absolute realism, I would grab a camera.

    Well put indeed!

Sign In or Register to comment.