Author Topic: Question: Why do Post-process in 3ds Max?  (Read 18843 times)

2016-07-17, 17:10:40

Marcellus Ludovicus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Vincunt, eos quibuscum contendunt.
    • View Profile
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I've been looking through the feature request forum and looked through the 'post-process' request thread. 

I'm scratching my head; why would you do post process in 3ds Max when there are other programs already dedicated to that?  It would seem to go against the simplicity of corona and also add a lot of unnecessary redundancy?  Can someone explain why this is necessary or a good thing?

Thanks,

Marcellus

2016-07-17, 17:33:31
Reply #1

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4769
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Not gonna go into detail now as this has many facets.

At bare minimum, renderers can't just output clean AA and GI like they did 10 years ago and everyone would composite the image afterwards. I kind of expect from photorealistic renderer to go step further and provide result akin to DSLR and cameras.
That includes phenomena like glare, natural tonemapping, etc.

This is the way the whole industry go, they simulate reality. With real-time engines and their WYSIWYG workflow you get to see what you're creating instantly, and you can be far more precise and consistent, let alone faster and efficient.

Of course, how much of true post-process like curves should be in framebuffers depends on individual needs and preference, but why not ? No one is asking for brush or cut tools.

Also, who wants to always output raw linear output, he just can. Options, they can be ignored. Even than having post-process in Framebuffer is helpful, because you can use it to preview your future result, switch it off, and do it cleanly in post later.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-17, 17:40:07
Reply #2

Malor

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Well, from my personal experience, i would say speed. I had design projects with really picky clients, where i had to pump out about 15 renders every morning, for a week or two, with small changes in every iteration. and going through the usual workflow with aeron soon became a very tedious process, taking about 1.5 hours every day to process all the images. having built in tools in frame buffer itself would've been much faster. and generally speaking interiors usually only require lens effects and some curves adjustment. so why not have them built in the engine with an additional degree of physical consistency (corona folks do those things really well)

2016-07-17, 20:53:04
Reply #3

zuliban

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
i do alot of post work and i still don't like this kind of workflow not because the results but because renders should aim to be ''cameras'' not just something that render the Gl and you do the rest in post.

if you look any digital camera image is not ''good enough'' straight from the camera and photographers go straight into Photoshop to create better colors ect ect. alot of professional photographers want to emulate traditional film lets call this film our tone mapping in CG, some tone mappings like kodak, fuji created back in the day beautiful colors contrast and so on...

our tone mapping in 3d is limited and looks bad straight from the render so we must ''fix'' it, it creates gray colors burned renders and so on you either wait until the developer create a great tone mapping or do this in post .

we could be silent and say nothing and stay with our postproduction workflow happy  or try to help the developers to create a better render engine .


« Last Edit: 2016-07-17, 20:56:25 by zuliban »

2016-07-17, 22:14:16
Reply #4

denisgo22

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 700
    • View Profile
Well, from my personal experience, i would say speed. I had design projects with really picky clients, where i had to pump out about 15 renders every morning, for a week or two, with small changes in every iteration. and going through the usual workflow with aeron soon became a very tedious process, taking about 1.5 hours every day to process all the images. having built in tools in frame buffer itself would've been much faster. and generally speaking interiors usually only require lens effects and some curves adjustment. so why not have them built in the engine with an additional degree of physical consistency (corona folks do those things really well)

it is absolutely right!
it is a very real working situation in some studios, when you need to do at the same time, several new projects and on demand
of architects to correct some old projects///
sometimes up to ten exteriors and interiors in one day///therefore, the smaller quantity production work levels, less problems and mistakes//


2016-07-18, 10:21:51
Reply #5

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
...unnecessary redundancy...
I see what you did there :D
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2016-07-18, 13:29:47
Reply #6

sebastian___

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
I'll paste again these pics.
How would you compose the shot without a "realtime" glare if you would want a glare from the sun to flash and show in a particular moment ? It would be trial and error with a a post workflow. And maybe with this scene would be easier, but if you would have let's say a character twisting a knife and in an exact moment the knife would flash a glare. That would be difficult to setup in post.




and with a post processing bloom or glare you can change a scene dramatically. Again difficult to imagine the changes without seeing straight in the framebuffer. Notice how you can flood more than half a screen with certain type of glare, and without that the entire screen would be black and empty.
 You would have some advantages though with a post workflow, better control and more options, so sometimes maybe the renderer post process would be used just as a preview.

2016-07-18, 19:17:53
Reply #7

Marcellus Ludovicus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Vincunt, eos quibuscum contendunt.
    • View Profile
...unnecessary redundancy...
I see what you did there :D

I wish I were that clever, but, I work for an engineering group.  For structural systems, some redundancies are necessary :) 

2016-07-18, 19:49:05
Reply #8

Marcellus Ludovicus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Vincunt, eos quibuscum contendunt.
    • View Profile
I get the responses about time and deadlines, and I'm not nearly advanced as most on here,

... but I will slightly push back on Sebastian's suggestions.  For the exact sun reflections, I would say we might be seeing the tree and not the forest.  Why don't you fake it?  Can't you just paint in the glare or the glow? I only do stills so I might be telling you to 'eat cake' but that's not my intent.    My go-bys are traditional art and matte painters.  E.g. why make light rays through a sun-well in a warehouse with volumetric fog (which kills my render time) when I can just do a z-depth mask and paint bucket some light prussian blue, then make some swirly white paint-brush scribbles on the sun-wells and motion blur/distort it.  Its not physically accurate, but its believable and looks good.  And its much more fun to do.

Anyways, I get the responses about deadlines, but I just imagine more frankenstein of post-process if I have to use two programs to do it.  I like corona because its simple, I worry its going to turn into v-ray complexity in a couple years.  I'm one of those less intelligent folk who do not like a lot of buttons :)

/Rant.

2016-07-18, 20:51:12
Reply #9

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4769
    • View Profile
    • studio website
I like corona because its simple, I worry its going to turn into v-ray complexity in a couple years. 

People are asking about adding artistic/creative options, those don't go against the nature of 'simplicity' of renderer. Artistic options can be ignored if they don't suit you, and by not using them, you do no harm to the image process.

There is big difference between "simple" (in terms of usage) and "bare-bone". Corona lacks features, both compared to some competitors, and to potential of rendering technology and some features do not work as should or best they can.

Rendering engines will evolve whether some like it or not. And if it won't, then in single moment people will disloyally go to another competitor, that's how it works :- ). Have a look at Octane -> F-Storm. So many users dropped the engine overnight after years of use simply because the new developer showed better interest at introducing features.

As long as the features are done tidily, and don't obstruct anything the software stays at the same level of complexity to use.

Why don't you fake it?

Why even use renderer at all if you can Photoshop it ? Why even Photoshop it if you can paint it ?

Because people use technology to do it for them, that's what technology is primarily for, advancing and automating processes. If you want to stop at certain point because it already does what you want and you want it to stay at this point, that is just your personal preference but by going to an extent of arguing against further advancement already smells of neo-luddite attitude.

10 years ago people wondered why use GI ? :- )   {actually some on Vray forums still do... }

My go-bys are traditional art and matte painters.  E.g. why make light rays through a sun-well in a warehouse with volumetric fog (which kills my render time) when I can just do a z-depth mask and paint bucket some light prussian blue, then make some swirly white paint-brush scribbles on the sun-wells and motion blur/distort it.  Its not physically accurate, but its believable and looks good.  And its much more fun to do.

Did you start this thread to truly ask about other users's reasons ? Or did you do it to write your own opinions ;- ) Because rants are better suited to personal blogs than hidden behind honest question as click-bait to start confrontation. It's not hard to guess that most users have rational reasons for their workflow and requests.

-
« Last Edit: 2016-07-18, 21:26:10 by Juraj_Talcik »
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-19, 04:54:16
Reply #10

Marcellus Ludovicus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Vincunt, eos quibuscum contendunt.
    • View Profile
I appreciate your edited response.

Yes it was a genuine question.

2016-07-19, 05:24:32
Reply #11

spadestick

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Quote
As long as the features are done tidily, and don't obstruct anything the software stays at the same level of complexity to use.

Great statement! Worth writing a blog on this line of thought.

2016-07-19, 06:02:18
Reply #12

philippelamoureux

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
I prefer to have the engine render stuff as physically as possible instead of faking it myself in photoshop. The risk of messing it up is too high in my case haha!

I also kinda like the ''technical'' side of 3d rendering, maybe more than the ''artistry'' side. Both are important though. I think if I was better  at maths and all that I'd like to be a graphics programmer ala John Carmack hehe!

2016-07-19, 06:40:59
Reply #13

Benny

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
I prefer to have the engine render stuff as physically as possible instead of faking it myself in photoshop. The risk of messing it up is too high in my case haha!

I also kinda like the ''technical'' side of 3d rendering, maybe more than the ''artistry'' side. Both are important though. I think if I was better  at maths and all that I'd like to be a graphics programmer ala John Carmack hehe!

That's funny, I'm kind of the same, I want to minimize my PS to levels and some color balance if I can.

About the technical vs the artistry, that reminds me of when I was a kid and taking pictures with film. When I was in the darkroom I felt it was a nuisance to have to go out and shoot something so I had something to develop and play with, but other times when I was out taking pictures it was just such a pain to have to wait and develop before I could see the result. Nowadays I'm done with the technical side and want it all to focus on the artistic.

2016-07-20, 05:36:53
Reply #14

sebastian___

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
For the exact sun reflections, I would say we might be seeing the tree and not the forest.  Why don't you fake it? 

Actually I'm almost a fan of using tricks and "shortcuts" as much as possible, perhaps because I'm forced to, rendering sometimes movies with very heavy scenes, so sometimes that fog bank floating over the forest is not a true volumetric smoke, but just a plane with alpha channel facing the camera, and maybe even half the forest in the distance is just a plane, and only the close trees and grass are 3d models. Same with the moss over the tree trunk, some are "real" moss, and the far away ones are just painted.

But sometimes it's easier to use the real thing.
As an example, let's say I have a 3d person walking around a dusty street, each step would generate a small cloud of dust. So I could easily place by hand a cloud of particles at each step contact. Or even easier, move the work to 2d domain and just place 2d layers of dust in after effects.
 But if I have 50 people walking and running, doing it by hand get's a lot more difficult and possibly annoying and repetitive, and suddenly it gets easier to setup an automatic generating system of "true" dust particles at each contact of feet with the ground. And if I spend a little more time and make sure the dust intensity is related with the force the character hits the ground, that means I can move the camera closer or in all kinds of angles, and it will still look realistic and good. Sure I have longer render times and some work time to setup the system, but next time I can reuse the system even for large groups of people, or even for giant spiders, horses and so on...

2016-07-20, 07:09:59
Reply #15

Njen

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cyan Eyed
Just to throw in my perspective here, as someone who has worked in the CG industry for over 20 years that I'd rather a renderer focus on rendering and all post happen in software designed specifically for post. In my humble opinion, any renderer that tries to do post effects will not be able to provide the quality or level of control as other software that has been explicitly designed to do those tasks well. Granted, other people are seeking an 'all-in-one" solution, but features like post effects in a renderer is almost useless on mid to large studios that already have tried and true methods to get better results.

From what I've read there has been someone hired to specifically work on the post effects, but I'd have rather seen those resources go into development of more renderer orientated features like skin, fur, volumes, etc. No post effect development time is more important that a decent skin shader, for example.

But again, I realise that different people have different needs.

2016-07-20, 07:21:08
Reply #16

Njen

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cyan Eyed
To put my comment into a more practical perspective (which also gives me a chance to shamelessly self promote my current project), I'm currently making an 8 minute steampunk themed, action based, animated short film all rendered in Corona (www.cyan-eyed.com), and I have zero interest in post effects. As even on this, being my own personal project, I want the greatest level of control in comp, and the last thing I would want to deal with is element merging or colour correction on images that have glare and bloom already rendered in them. I don't see myself using any of the post effects at all.
« Last Edit: 2016-07-20, 07:41:55 by Njen »

2016-07-20, 14:27:29
Reply #17

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4769
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Looks really damn good :- )

I don't think they hired anyone yet. And this complaining of where "resources" go is both bit unfair and groundless too, it's not a zero sum game, or mercantilistic utopia. In same way, 95+perc. of users are 3dsMax, should we start complaining about wasted development time on our Cinema4D bros :- ) ? Maybe without Cinema4D, we would have both skin shader and post effects :- D Just kidding, it doesn't work that way.

Once again, the discussion is absolutistic in arguments. No one is asking for integration of Photoshop or AfterEffects (although AfterEffects integrated Cinema, and Nuke has integrated Vray, people obviously DO want this by large). Glare, bloom, natural tonemapping, are all part of cameras, simple curve adjustments are also not resource hogs.

C'mon, how long does it take to integrate good contrast and curve adjustment :- ) ? Yet, we don't have it for two years and now someone will complain it's wasted effort better put into skin shader ? There hasn't even been that effort done yet.
At same time, they do work on pretty much all the features people wish for, the team is quite bigger than the single Ondra it was when I joined.

Large majority of Corona users would benefit from these features. The amount of people who do 50+ images per month and want instant feedback and consistent workflow on them far outweigh those who won't look at it. And even those don't loose anything at all with such features, they can simply ignore them, nothing changes for them.
Corona started with philosophy of simple photorealistic simulator. If anything, it caters currently much more towards this crowd than competitors who are fully featured. I also would love skin shader (I am actually using humans in current project), but the amount of people who will ever use it, compared to those who will use glare and curves, is unmatched. But that is no argument to ignore either.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-20, 15:52:07
Reply #18

Njen

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cyan Eyed
I get where you are coming from, believe me.

But to look at this another way: I can rattle off in 10 seconds a number of different software solutions to add lens effects to an image, but I can't see a single physical skin shader that can be used with Corona.

What I'm trying to say is that I think resources should be diverted to areas that are unique to Corona first, then once all of the holes have been filled, go ahead and implement features that are many other software packages already do. Do we really need yet another method to add bloom to an image right now, or can we get support for far more necessary features that we currently do not have support for like skin, dispersion, reflection/refraction includes/excludes.

[Edit:] Oh, and thanks for the kind words about Cyan Eyed ;)

2016-07-20, 16:42:21
Reply #19

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4769
    • View Profile
    • studio website
I can equally answer that all those features exist in renderers like Arnold and Redshift :- )  Corona didn't base their marketing on includes/excludes, but capacity to make good 'looking' images. (not good sampled images ).

Look at the feature request thread. See where skin shader lies ( I write this knowing I will receive wrath of those who want this feature, and again, I want this feature too.... but what else to reply to "give my feature first"  type of argument ? )
Matter is, if Corona isn't serving your interest right now (and it's not really serving the VFX crowd much at all yet), why even choose is over Arnold/Redshift ? Why do you think you should get priority over 90perc. of userbase ?

And this is still just to answer your crazy argument these features somehow compete. Do you really think they have developer who can write glare and support for alSurface shader at some time ? But only has time for one ? Or they have budget for one developer only while there are 50 available candidates ?
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-20, 17:21:23
Reply #20

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
Do you really think they have developer who can write glare and support for alSurface shader at some time ? But only has time for one ?
yes

also to keep the flame going: if it wasnt for the crack, we would also have money to hire more people to do both at the same time ;)
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2016-07-20, 18:55:16
Reply #21

Juraj

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 4769
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Browsing ChaosGroup recently, it seems the only person there who can port alSurface is Vlado himself, who's doing it overnights as prototype. The character artists there are just as desperate for good SS as elsewhere :- ).

I doubt something like glare needs that kind of expertise.

Regarding crack, the Denuvo hypetrain got recently revealed pricemark... it's surprisingly cheap.
Please follow my new Instagram for latest projects, tips&tricks, short video tutorials and free models
Behance  Probably best updated portfolio of my work
lysfaere.com Please check the new stuff!

2016-07-21, 03:55:51
Reply #22

Njen

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cyan Eyed
I know of the feature request poll you have mentioned, and yes one has to recognise the will of the current users in regards to what users what. Though one also has to consider the prospective future users looking to buy a great new renderer but have not yet done so because of a lack of certain features.

The following statement is not based on facts, just anecdotal evidence from asking various colleagues in the industry: few would not want to buy a license because of a lack of lens effects such as glare, but I believe more people would not want to buy a license because of a lack of a good skin shader.

If I was trying to convince my employer at my day job to switch to Corona (I work for a VFX studio), they would see a lack or a good skin shader to be a deal breaker, while a lack of lens effects is barely a blip on the radar.

I feel that I need to add that I think Corona is fantastic, and the giddy feeling I get from using it is similar to how I felt when I first started using Brazil more than 10 years ago. I just feel that Corona has the potential to have a wider adoption at studios if some development time was refocused on other features first.

2016-07-21, 09:50:44
Reply #23

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 9048
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
If I was trying to convince my employer at my day job to switch to Corona (I work for a VFX studio), they would see a lack or a good skin shader to be a deal breaker, while a lack of lens effects is barely a blip on the radar.

Well, there is one crucial factor you are missing - you already WANT to use Corona. Now you are requesting features so that you CAN use Corona. Lens flare is obviously not such feature, because it can easily be done in post. But most people in CG as general (outside of this forum) do not WANT to use Corona. And lens flare, although not essential, is a feature that will make them WANT use it.
Rendering is magic.How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2016-07-21, 10:52:01
Reply #24

Njen

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • Cyan Eyed
A good point well taken. I'm sure you realise that I am looking at Corona from a high end VFX point of view, which is probably different to what the reality is no doubt.

Regardless, I hope that my small voice in this issue helps adjust the direction Corona will take in the future.

2016-07-21, 13:27:37
Reply #25

Rhodesy

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Hoping the quick release of the C4D version will help to add to the Corona coffers for more devs.

2016-07-22, 12:50:43
Reply #26

romullus

  • Global Moderator
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 8892
  • Let's move this topic, shall we?
    • View Profile
    • My Models
also to keep the flame going: if it wasnt for the crack, we would also have money to hire more people to do both at the same time ;)
Oh dear, you should stop smoking crack - not only it drains money quicker than one can earn, but also it's bad for health :]

* runs for cover
I'm not Corona Team member. Everything i say, is my personal opinion only.
My Models | My Videos | My Pictures

2016-07-22, 13:24:39
Reply #27

sebastian___

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile

2016-07-22, 17:28:25
Reply #28

Ludvik Koutny

  • VIP
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 2557
  • Just another user
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio

2016-07-22, 19:29:04
Reply #29

Marcellus Ludovicus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Vincunt, eos quibuscum contendunt.
    • View Profile


... But if I have 50 people walking and running, doing it by hand get's a lot more difficult and possibly annoying and repetitive, and suddenly it gets easier to setup an automatic generating system of "true" dust particles at each contact of feet with the ground. And if I spend a little more time and make sure the dust intensity is related with the force the character hits the ground, that means I can move the camera closer or in all kinds of angles, and it will still look realistic and good. Sure I have longer render times and some work time to setup the system, but next time I can reuse the system even for large groups of people, or even for giant spiders, horses and so on...

Cool, so you want it for the same reason I don't want it; to save time.  Makes sense.


2016-07-22, 19:35:35
Reply #30

Marcellus Ludovicus

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Vincunt, eos quibuscum contendunt.
    • View Profile
Actually, maybe that's what successful people have in common :)

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279270

5 rocket landings while turning a profit FTW! Makes for great motivation.


2016-07-22, 21:42:12
Reply #31

sebastian___

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Cool, so you want it for the same reason I don't want it; to save time.  Makes sense.

Maybe it was not the best example. I was trying to say that I think we are heading for a completely automatic workflow. At some point in the future. The sooner the better. I think Juraj mentioned something similar somewhere here.

Post effects can have a strong impact on images (and I'm not talking about a la JJ Abrams lens flare overload).
Sure you can add them in post and maybe with a better control and quality. But look around on various forums, most of the images posted are without post effects.
  And maybe for some people, taking the trip to photoshop and applying the default lensflare is not a good idea also. The ideal renderer would apply post effects calculating the best and most realistic values related to the scene and the amount of light and so on.

I think it's a little funny that most people here are talking about unreal, but I will go against the flow and talk about cryengine since that's what I know. So I will ramble a bit about that.

In 2007 when I installed the cryengine editor I was stunned. It was similar to 3ds max, it had the "create" panel where I would drag objects in the viewport. But when I dragged a person, a soldier, perhaps in a similar way you create a biped in 3ds max, the soldier had motion. It would blink, maybe hum a song. From time to time would bend down to tie his shoes, would look around, breathe.
 The entire viewport was "alive", insects would fly around, the sea was animated with reflection and some kind of fake refraction. I dragged a shark under the water and it was fairly high poly with pretty good default swimming motion and with some kind of fake but good looking animated caustics on its skin. Under water volumetric effects and rays.

  To get to the point, the post effects were pretty good also, except from time to time when a bright light would leave the screen, a sudden flare or glare, looking like a vertical line coming from above would appear. I thought it must be a defect, something expected from a realtime editor. I thought it's odd that the ray would come with increased intensity when the light source would not be visible anymore.
 And also sometimes the same effect would manifest in some kind of flickering light coming from above and interrupted by the upper edge of the screen. Difficult to explain in words.
  And to my surprise I started to see the same effect in lots of movies. Filmed with real cameras. So it was not a defect.
  Even though I have some experience, I would never have thought to manually go and add an effect like that.

A quick google and I found this pic, not even sure if it's the same effect, but it's something similar (it was not so strong though)
http://www.collativelearning.com/PICS%20FOR%20WEBSITE/stills%202/screen%20shine%202.jpg

  I'm sure the cryengine programmers didn't programmed that particular effect to appear.
  But I think if you program post effects (and everything else) with a good set of behaviors without too many fakes you will start seeing more and more realistic secondary effects in all kinds of situations, some you didn't know existed or should be there at all.

I think the future programs would have these effects and behaviors entirely automatic, correct looking and enabled all the time. With the options to override them for artistic reasons.
 Off topic here, as it's not rendering related but I think animation creation, simulation, world creation, characters control and many more would get a lot less technical and more automated. Almost like playing and creating a real world, where everything would behave automatic and correct.

2016-07-23, 14:03:28
Reply #32

alexyork

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 706
  • Partner at Recent Spaces
    • View Profile
    • RECENT SPACES
For us, more and more we are being asked to deliver the whole package of stills, animations and VR tour for each project. Right now we are working on one such project with a very large number of stills, animations and a large, complex VR tour. Post-production is basically impossible because of the sheer number of renders we're doing. It would just kill our time-frame. When changes get pushed into the various models we know we can simply re-render and everything is done and ready to push to the client. We don't need to worry about re-doing a load of complicated post work because the cameras have changed, the sun angle has changed or anything else. No dodgy fake reflections that need re-painting etc. This simplifies our workflow tremendously. Being able to do things like glare and glow, vignetting, WB control, and all the rest of it directly in Corona is pretty much a god-send for a project like this. Well, it will be if 1.5 gets rolled out soon so we can jump on it!
Alex York
Partner
RECENT SPACES
recentspaces.com

2016-07-25, 10:19:56
Reply #33

Frood

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1932
    • View Profile
    • Rakete GmbH
Very true what alex wrote, applies for us 1:1. Although it may not be always about those final final (final_c ? ;) images which make it into print. But when projects start and evolve you have to be able to deliver updates in no time. Even when it does not look like that, real estate stuff is very dynamic at high pace and customers got used to and demand short iteration ranges. Minimizing or even avoiding post is a key here. The process should be: Make your scene changes, submit to wherever farm, mail result.

Good Luck

Never underestimate the power of a well placed level one spell.

2016-07-26, 04:50:58
Reply #34

Benny

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
Another point is that it would be great to do curves etc in the frame buffer, so that one can then export an 8 bit image for other effects in PS.