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 - davemahi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
We understand that Corona is a physically-based renderer, but you allow little cheats here and there anyway. You also cant Exclude lights and include lights in a real world. I think all people are asking for is more control over the render! There is not photographer that does not photoshop the crap out of their images anyway, so I don't understand the argument about not letting people adjust stuff like this. To each their own I guess. But if it does not work that way under the hood that make sense.

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Faster Rendering
« on: 2024-02-05, 20:23:01 »
Here you go for reference.

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Price Increase
« on: 2024-01-11, 16:54:59 »
Add me to the list of confused and disappointed. The value is just not there anymore and there are so many alternatives.

[Max] I need help! / Re: Strip / partial rendering
« on: 2023-09-07, 22:17:19 »
I have done this before for a print job with a huge reolution on Garage Farm, they support strip rendering. Im not sure about doing it on your box though sorry. It sounds like your scene may be the issue. We have sent huge images with many of Forest pack scatters, so not sure why your's is having an issue.
Sorry I could not be of more help, but Garage Farm has helped me for sure on problems like this.

Cheers, and good luck.

[Max] I need help! / Re: Flickering noise animation
« on: 2023-06-13, 17:20:32 »
There is no way you should be seeing those render times with a scene like that.
If you turn on the render passes you could look and see where the most noise is coming from.
IE: Direct vs Indirect or reflection.

Hey Tom,

If you want to set up a time to chat about this I would be open to talking. We are trying to figure out what is going on. We have used Corona in animation production for years, and not
find it very hard to clean up noise that used to not be issues before we upgraded. I know that sounds like not a lot of info, but we don't know why or what changed.

[Max] General Discussion / Carona 9 DOF vs older versions
« on: 2023-03-21, 20:00:19 »
Has anyone noticed Corona 9 having a harder time cleaning up DOF compared to previous versions? Our scenes just don't clean
up the same as before, and the DOF areas are way more noisy.

Thanks for any imput.


I actually tried this before, but since I'm using DOF and the plane needs to be very close to the camera because of the fog volume, it's completely blurred.

Would be a nice feature to add a select render option for objects in a volume or behind transparent objects.

Yes I have run into this issue many times and wished there was an option.

I think what they are saying is that you can't “render selected” an object in a volume. The Volume renders everything that is inside, even if render selected is used.

So I have rolled back to an older Corona version and sent my same scene to the farm. It rendered faster and cost less overall. And the noise was a little bit better on the older version for me.
I'm not sure what is going on under the hood that would have changed. But it is not behaving the same way. Unfortunately all of our scenes are client files and we can't share them, so I am sorry you can't have a file to debug.

- Anything but the CoronaHQ denoising is not working for animations.
- Corona 9 has more noise overall in our renders and needs more samples than the previous releases.
- Overall rendering is slower with Corona 9.
- Corona 9 resolving DOF seems to be not as good, and ends up looking like rendering noise and wierd stuff.

- As a studio we have decided not to use Corona 9 in production and hope that the Devs can see this happening on their end.

The orignal poster here though should know that using AI denoiser and DOF is a bad combo with Corona 9.

Cheap and dirty would be to go to the top menu, Layer> Matting> Defringe

Not the best solution, but will work in a lot of cases.

I want to give my 2 cents here. We have been using Corona since the beginning, and our studio just upgraded to Corona 9. We definitely find the renders more noisy than previous releases.
I'm not sure whats going on, but somthing has changed and not for the better for us. We wll most likely roll back to an older version of Corona to render out animations. DOF and indirect noise are for sure worse in Corona 9 for us.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with the denoiser for us.

[Max] I need help! / Re: Flickering on interior animation
« on: 2022-12-07, 15:35:56 »
Any way you can make the videos be able to expand to full resolution? It's hard to tell what is noise and compression. Or are these rendered out at this size?

[Max] I need help! / Re: Flickering on interior animation
« on: 2022-12-05, 17:01:34 »
I hope I could help in some way.

The pass limit thing I guess is just a personal thing, as getting some parts of our animations down to the same noise level may make render times too much for us. So we ballpark an overall ammount we can handle. If our cameras are moving fast through some complex lighting, forcing the render to hit 5% may be overkill.

But it is all just personal preference, and in the end, you have to do what you feel works for the scene.

I look forward to seeing your results, or even for anyone to step in and tell us how we can improve things too :)



[Max] I need help! / Re: Flickering on interior animation
« on: 2022-12-02, 16:08:22 »
I'm not sure you need to hit a noise level lower than 5%! We do mostly animation, and with a good enough noise level and some denosing you should get acceptable results.

For me I gave up on doing any type of Cache for the solvers when we moved to Corona. All our animations are rendered with Path Tracing for both primary and secondary. We don't get any flickering in lighting, just noise. I know the tool tip says Path Tracing for interior is not the most forgiving for renders, but we usualy have objects moving around, lights animating and all kinds of things tha make it the right choice for us.

Now i'm not sure if we could reduce render time by baking the secondary solver, but my time and sanity are more important than messing with that stuff lol. The only thing we do is set our desired Pass Pimit based on a few still frames targeting to be around 5-10% % noise with about 0.75 denoising.

Some other things we do in our Max start file:

- Set corona to have a bit of highlight Clamping in the system tab, and mostly use Corona High Quality filtering.
- Lower the Max Sample Intensity in the Performance Tab.

Now I know that by doing this it will affect the physicality of the render per say, but it helps with getting rid of junk like fireflies and other artifacts, at the expense of a bit darker image that no one will ever know about :)

Take all this with a grain of salt, as we have set up Corona for how we like images, how fast we need renders and overall what works for us. But in my opinion for animations where more than just tha camera are moving, it is what works here.

You should post a video of your problem, so people can give you real feedback though.

Also "The texture of the plaster wall has intricate details so the first thing I did was to simplify it a bit by adding a small blur on the plaster texture in Photoshop so that Corona has less work to do with the sampling. also note I use only CoronaBitmaps in this scene, with Filtering > Blur value of 1.0"

This should not be happening, and you should not have to blur your map like that at all.

EDIT: Here is our work if you want to see our results.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13