226
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Resolution per Camera in Corona Camera Tab
« on: 2021-08-06, 23:10:31 »
+1 for this. I'd love a landscape/portrait mode switch added too as jpjapers suggested.
2024-04-19, 20:42:13
News:
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
227
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-08-05, 04:12:47 »
Thanks for your help, Maru. Really appreciate you took the time to check the scene.
I'll probably go for option 2 or 3 since I need the most realistic result possible this time. Hopefully in the future we'll get faster rendering of volumetrics.
I'll probably go for option 2 or 3 since I need the most realistic result possible this time. Hopefully in the future we'll get faster rendering of volumetrics.
228
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Some improvements to proxies
« on: 2021-08-05, 03:54:20 »
+1
I've wanted something like this so long!
I've wanted something like this so long!
229
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-07-25, 21:27:51 »
Thanks for your quick reply Tom. By disabling "Adaptive Light Solve" the problem with the big chunks not being rendered correctly seems to be solved. This was not the case when using Corona 6 in my first posts, for some reason.
I'm still concerned about the amount of noise in the image. Is it normal?
On the other hand, Corona Render Help Desk says this about adaptive solver:
"The results produced with the adaptive solver enabled are always less biased (more realistic) than with the adaptive solver disabled."
In my case, how would not having this option enabled affect the realism of the scene? Would you mind elaborate a bit further?
I'm still concerned about the amount of noise in the image. Is it normal?
On the other hand, Corona Render Help Desk says this about adaptive solver:
"The results produced with the adaptive solver enabled are always less biased (more realistic) than with the adaptive solver disabled."
In my case, how would not having this option enabled affect the realism of the scene? Would you mind elaborate a bit further?
230
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-07-24, 06:38:12 »
Just revisiting my own post. I couldn't prepare and upload the scene before. I just did. Here's what I'm getting using Corona 7 and 3ds Max 2022. I really hope you guys can help me with this when you have some time.
231
[Max] Tutorials & Guides / Re: Specular To IOR (OSL)
« on: 2021-07-01, 18:26:10 »
🎧"Ready 4 take off "🎧
232
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-06-03, 16:43:56 »
Thank you, Tom, for the tips. I'll prepare the scene and send it to the team. By the way, is there any benefit, at least in my case, from using a Volumetric Material on the Global Volume Material slot instead of a box or vise versa?
Quote
Hi. Hmmm.. before writing my previous post I actually made a direct comparison between your settings and my suggested settings, and found a noticeable improvement. So it seems theres something else thrown into the equation.Maybe I missed something. There's a couple of mesh lights on the ceiling which I didn't mention because they're being rendered just fine. I'll take a closer look to the Max lights and see if I can get something from it.
233
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-06-03, 15:40:32 »
Thank you burnin and PROH for your suggestions. I tried using your settings but I'm afraid "Single Bounce Only" is not an option for me in this case. It reduces the scattering of light across the scene significantly, making everything too dark. My client and I need the lights to behave as close to reality as possible for this project.
On the other hand, I didn't see a great improvement in terms of noise reduction with any of the suggested settings. The renderer keeps having problems specially on the areas of the beam closer to the source. I guess these kind of effects like fog and steam are just difficult for renderers.
I'm a little worried at this point not knowing how I'll solve this issue. There're still another 41 moving heads to be added to the scene :c
On the other hand, I didn't see a great improvement in terms of noise reduction with any of the suggested settings. The renderer keeps having problems specially on the areas of the beam closer to the source. I guess these kind of effects like fog and steam are just difficult for renderers.
I'm a little worried at this point not knowing how I'll solve this issue. There're still another 41 moving heads to be added to the scene :c
234
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-06-02, 23:05:18 »Have you tried a render test without the light's housing around it?
I have. But nothing improves apparently.
235
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-06-02, 21:27:13 »
Hi Maru.
I disabled denoiser and tried increasing "Light Samples Multiplier" but still can't get a clean image. Even after 30 mins the whole image has artifacts and the light beam is not renderer as expected. If at some point you feel it'd would be a good idea to take a look a the scene by yourself, just let me know and I'll share it.
I disabled denoiser and tried increasing "Light Samples Multiplier" but still can't get a clean image. Even after 30 mins the whole image has artifacts and the light beam is not renderer as expected. If at some point you feel it'd would be a good idea to take a look a the scene by yourself, just let me know and I'll share it.
236
[Max] I need help! / Re: Light beam not being rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-06-02, 17:34:39 »
Hi Nejc!
I tried turning "Adaptive Light Solver" off but the problem persists.
I tried turning "Adaptive Light Solver" off but the problem persists.
237
[Max] I need help! / Light beam not rendered correctly with fog
« on: 2021-06-02, 03:30:33 »
What could be the reason for this problem?
238
General CG Discussion / Re: Using Adobe Camera Raw to post-process EXR renders
« on: 2021-05-11, 22:12:38 »
Yeah, I guess I'll have to accept that Photoshop/ACR is not meant to be used for 32bit EXR editing. I really like the simplicity of ACR but maybe it's time to try something different like the options you guys mentioned.
239
[Max] Tutorials & Guides / Re: Specular To IOR (OSL)
« on: 2021-05-01, 17:25:22 »
I'm still trying to understand this IOR thing. I hope you guys can give me a hand:
1) Why exactly is this IOR map needed and what is the physical phenomenon this map is trying to simulate?
2) Should we use IOR map for skin only or for all materials?
3) Is this method needed when using V-Ray too?
4) How do I get IOR maps when all I have is a diffuse texture?
1) Why exactly is this IOR map needed and what is the physical phenomenon this map is trying to simulate?
2) Should we use IOR map for skin only or for all materials?
3) Is this method needed when using V-Ray too?
4) How do I get IOR maps when all I have is a diffuse texture?
240
General CG Discussion / Using Adobe Camera Raw to post-process EXR renders
« on: 2021-04-10, 04:42:17 »
I've been trying to use Photoshop to post-process my EXR renders just like I'd do with DNG files. You know better than me the difficulties of this, since Adobe Camera Raw does not support 32 EXR files. My current workaround is to check the "Use adobe Camera Raw to convert documents from 32 bit to 16/8 bit" option in Photoshop preferences. This way, every time I load a 32 bit EXR render in Photoshop and change from 32 bit to 8 bit, Photoshop will launch ACR in order to tonemap the image.
However, after messing around with this method for a while, I've started to question myself wheatear this is really working or not since it doesn't really feel like editing a real RAW image. I mean, am I really being able to access the whole dynamic range of the EXR using this workaround? If you have already tried this method, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.
SG
However, after messing around with this method for a while, I've started to question myself wheatear this is really working or not since it doesn't really feel like editing a real RAW image. I mean, am I really being able to access the whole dynamic range of the EXR using this workaround? If you have already tried this method, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.
SG