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.

Messages - monitorhero

Pages: [1]
Sorry for replying to such an old thread but strange things are happening on my end and I can't really wrap my head around it.
So in Photoshop I create a pure red color field in sRGB Profile (which is standard setting in PS). I put R 255 G 0 B 0. Save it as a file. (attached it here)
If I open this bitmap in 3dsmax and open image in Max I get a value of R 253 G 0 B 0.
Not it gets worse. If I use a Vray color map and pick the color with Corona Color Picker from the bitmap field in the Material Editor I get a value of R 254 G 0 B 0.
Wait. It gets better. Now if I pick the color directly from Photoshop I get a color that has R 220 G 14 B 7.

However if I set my Photoshop Color Management to Monitor RGB now I can pick the correct color. But as a saved bitmap it still has a value of R 253 G 0 B 0.

Please help! :D

[Max] I need help! / Re: Is Corona clamping GI?
« on: 2018-10-25, 20:23:56 »
Yes, Corona is clamping GI. The MSI (Max Sample Intensity) parameter is responsible for this, it's in the Performance tab. See:
To prevent this, you can set MSI to 0, which will result in unclamped GI, but prepare for firefly party. ;)

Haha roger that :D

A thing I just read that I find very interesting and also raises a few questions about ACES and RGB in general:

I guess spectral rendering is the future otherwise we will always rely on cheats/artistry ;)

[Max] I need help! / Is Corona clamping GI?
« on: 2018-10-24, 09:02:11 »
Hey guys,

I read here that Corona is pretty heavily clamping GI rays. Is that still the case and can we prevent this?

I added the tone mapping into the list. It is high on my list of features to do, the problem is that we are talking about very subtle differences and as Tok_Tok said, we dont even know why some tone mappers look more realistic than others. What can be definitely improved though is usability - removing current controls for something like shadows/midtones/highlights controls

Why remove those features? I think they are useful. But I am glad to hear that it's high up on your list. And definitely talk to Dubcat about that. I think he can offer a lot of insight into this :-) please :D

If I look at the roadmap I see all kinds of improvements that are interesting but it's not the things uses want (I think),
Not what users what? What are you talking about?

Users want: caustics, clearcoat, fixed volume media, removing portals, cryptomatte, and more.

I think when you said "it's not the things uses want (I think)", you actually meant "it's not things I want".

I'll be blunt. The whole race, since the beginning of CGI, is to make the most realistic image possible. That's what you see people do and admire when somebody is making images that are next level in realism (and also in beauty, but that's dependent on the user not the engine). So the MOST important thing for a render engine is to keep up with what's technical possible. At the moment Fstorm is producing more realistic images than Corona, don't ask me why or how, I'm not a technician, it just does. So I think that the most important thing for the Corona team is to improve the engine to be on par with the best. I think THAT is the most important thing to work out now, and that's not in the poll.

The whole reason I switched, a few years ago from, Maxwell Render to Corona is that Corona is better (read more realistic and faster). If you ask me, Maxwell is nice but it's dying out because they did not improve their render model and kept to the physically correct rendering of light. I love corona(!) so I would hate to see the same thing happening to them so I really like to see that they keep improving their render quality so it still on par with the best, as they used to be a few years back.

I know a lot of people not going to agree with me because this might be too bluntly said, but I think that in it's core this is true. People will eventually chose for what's the best quality. :)

Right now I think Fstorm and Corona are on par. It might take a little more effort to achieve the same results in Corona. What I miss from Fstorm which I think is crucial is triplanar mapping. And it's not a planned feature in the near future. (I asked Andrey) Is there another way to achieve that in Fstorm without unwrapping?

But I still would prefer the ease of the fstorm tonemapping.

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2018-10-20, 11:40:36 »
How is the work on the GPU front coming along since it's the highest polling feature?
I also visited a few threads here about the shader and fresnel stuff and a better shader implementation (e.g.
Is this something you guys are working on? I am curious. Thank you :)

[Max] I need help! / Re: Trying to understand Fresnel IOR
« on: 2018-10-19, 13:57:02 »
As far as I understand it, for the vast majority of non-metals you can leave reflection at 1 and IOR at 1.52.

For metals it's a bit different - the way I work with metals is Diffuse Level set to 0, Siger Shaders Complex Fresnel in the Reflection Colour Slot as a starting point, Corona Color in the IOR slot set to 99999, 99999, 99999 for RGB - which effectively disables the IOR, at this point I'll fire up Interactive Render and tweak the colour of the metal using the settings available in Complex Fresnel and then the blurriness of reflections using the Reflection Gloss value until it looks right to me and/or my reference.

Of course this is only for 'pure' untouched materials.  If I want to add a bit of realism then I also add some Gloss Maps into the mix and or Layered Materials.

Whether I'm doing things right or wrong, I don't particularly care, as long as it looks good/correct to me and the people paying for it.

Thanks buckley, that's how I have been doing it too. I was just wondering about the workflow if I don't use ComplexFresnel. Why do they use high values like 25-32 and where do they come from? Trying to understand the math behind it.

Best thing would be we get something like in the beforementioned video about the Lego Movie here

Any updates from the developers on this?

Did anything ever come out of this? I recently jumped on the opposite track with working with linear 32bit exr. The possibilities are so much greater in compositing especially with the Corona Image Editor.
I am a Blender user and Blenders filmic tonemapper didn't quite give me what I wanted compared to Coronas Image Editor. I am trying to wrap my head around this topic for a few months now and it's difficult to fully grasp.

[Max] I need help! / Trying to understand Fresnel IOR
« on: 2018-10-19, 07:33:06 »
Hello guys,

since I am new to Corona I would like to ask about a few things:

Here for a chrome material an IOR value of 32 is suggested. I never saw IOR values like this. Isn't that physically inaccurate? Where do I get the correct values from?

Also if I have a plastic I use an IOR of 1.52. Do I still need to set the reflection level to 1? Or how does the Reflection Level correspond to the Fresnel IOR?

On this site an IOR value for Chromium is 2.970

Thanks in advance


Chaos Corona for Blender / Re: Blender Exporter v3 released
« on: 2018-10-17, 18:43:51 »
noted, will be implemented

Love you guys.

Chaos Corona for Blender / Re: Blender Exporter v3 released
« on: 2018-10-17, 09:08:54 »
Thank you for the quick answer blanchg. I wasn't aware that there are differences between standalone and 3dsmax e.g.
That is unfortunate. Maybe a developer could give us insight?

But thank you for checking it out.

Chaos Corona for Blender / Re: Blender Exporter v3 released
« on: 2018-10-16, 19:52:18 »
Hey blanchg,

thank you very much for the work you put into the exporter. I really love Corona after testing it for two weeks now. Its so fast and the image quality is great.

Are you working on intergrating triplanar mapping? For Archviz this essential to me and it's the only thing holding me back right now. So if you would intergrate it that would be greatly appreciated.

Let me know. Thank you.

Pages: [1]