1
Gallery / Re: Naeq FIN/WIP Gallery
« on: 2014-09-19, 15:33:33 »
love yr clean lighting...
2024-04-20, 02:06:16
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.
Pages: [1] 2
3
[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Multi-Layer Material support?
« on: 2014-09-11, 22:04:54 »That's already being implemented!Really? Where? There is standard blend material but it doesn't let you add layers easily and it doesn't work well (for example with refractive materials). We need to wait for this.
From the 'most wanted feature' thread:
I've removed multilayer mtl, SSS, and media, since these are the features we are currently working on.
source
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,96.165.html
;)
4
[Max] General Discussion / Re: The albedo question.
« on: 2014-03-16, 05:57:36 »
And it seems to me that albedo and LRV are the same thing.
I would say this is quite correct imho, that's why I think the value of albedo/LRV/any other physical measurement can't be used directly in CGI model in some sort of hocus-focus
bro-science formula."Light Reflectance Value (LRV) is the total quantity of visible and useable light reflected by a surface in all directions and at all wavelengths when illuminated by a light source."
Source: http://thelandofcolor.com/lrv-light-reflectance-value-of-paint-colors/
My reasoning is you can't just multiply diffuse value (or averaged tonal value of texture) as the measured number accounted both diffuse and specular property of material, something
that is separated in material model of most renderers, like Corona. Conservatively, LRV value of 40 for example, accounts for both the tonal value in diffuse property and overal averaged reflectance from all angles combined together in one single value, so it can't be stuck for example in reflective slot alone (which is just 90 degree reflectance of specular property, and more than less should quite often be very high value, might as well leave it white ) irregardless of reflective IOR curve ( or IOR value in simplier model).
40perc. reflectance for metal and plastic while identical once averaged in LRV value have drastically different visual look, as the metal is only specular, while plastic have both specular and diffuse property while also having very different spread due to reflective curve where metal will be evenly reflective overall with close to horizontal reflective curve (with late peak at top) while plastic will have rising curve that will change diffuse into specular as it will reach grazing angle.
[[ well, actually, for some, very regular and highly reflective metals, the LRV value could probably be used directly without reaching wrong result. Since they would have almost completely horizontal reflective curve (or IOR value higher than 20 respectively ), they would reflect light already in very even fashion from all angles, have no diffuse property (super clean), so the LRV value could be then used as 0.4*255, it wouldn't be accurate, be neither look wrong, apart from layered look and simplified BRDF model
In same fashion, it could be used directly for pure-diffuse materials, but there are (almost?I don't know) none in reality, the specular property would skew the measured number
Closest match would be the regular super-matte paint wall-paint, something people now more than often learned to use properly, i.e. white matte wall being sub <200 instead of 255 commonly used almost universally before]]
Imho because of this, they are rarely useful even for eye-balling reasons as most materials are just combination of all. It's just helpful data for construction/design industry to create visual contrast in materials (often for safety reasons).
The best photorealistic freaks (in good way) can do is follow the reflectance curves under correct wavelength from table list like this :
http://refractiveindex.info/
and observe materials in strictly measured photography at 0 (straight-on) angle and with close to 90degree angle.
Disclaimer : I am presenting my understanding of all this, which I only speculate on but ponder upon quite often and study for quite some time. Might not use correct terms and language,
but it's worth to look behind that, since my job is to make nice pictures, not write scientific papers.
Yeah, thats what i thought/feared... still i hoped i was kinda wrong :)
5
[Max] General Discussion / Re: The albedo question.
« on: 2014-03-16, 01:12:10 »albedo is the sum of all components (diffuse, reflect, ...)
Each component is calculated as LEVEL * COLOR (with 255 = albedo 1).
Albedo is defined only for reflective materials. Emission does not count into it.
Texture changes albedo of your material in each point. You can still reason about albedo the same way as before, just use average color of the texture instead of the constant color.
Something i've been wondering for quite some time now... is how to reproduce accurate paint materials. Specifically, what to do with the LRV value?
When you look up the color specs of some dulux paint for example they are specified by RGB values (nice!) but then there is also the LRV and i have no clue what to do with it
... I cant seem to find any clear info on this. It has something to do with the amount of visible light that is reflected but yeah, thats not really helpfull info...
There was one guy on a lightwave forum suggesting it was the reflection value, but that looked totally wrong.
I also thought maybe to apply the LRV as an percentage/multiplier to the given RGB value but that didnt look right either...
6
Gallery / Re: Corona Renderer sample scene
« on: 2014-03-14, 21:00:05 »
Looking good!
I think it wouldnt be a bad idea to also include some non-architectual scenes also... You know how fast ppl will think Corona can only do architectual stuff, just because of the examples.
I think it wouldnt be a bad idea to also include some non-architectual scenes also... You know how fast ppl will think Corona can only do architectual stuff, just because of the examples.
7
[Max] General Discussion / Re: True GI: Corona vs V-Ray 3.0
« on: 2014-03-14, 01:17:38 »I'm sorry, but I think that this test is nonsense.
This test is for comparing Bruteforce GI only. No direct lighting, but GI. So light in window is cheating in this case.
Not if you make it a portal
8
Off-Topic / Re: Funny maxwell forum thread
« on: 2014-03-06, 16:17:43 »
Dont worry about the maxwell forum... Arguing about stuff like this on forums is useless.
Remember a good product sells itself and doesnt need false advertising and hyping like *some other renderer* needed...
If Corona keeps kicking ass as it does now at release ppl will notice soon enough and it'll be hard to ignore.
Remember a good product sells itself and doesnt need false advertising and hyping like *some other renderer* needed...
If Corona keeps kicking ass as it does now at release ppl will notice soon enough and it'll be hard to ignore.
9
Off-Topic / Re: Autodesk Softimage EOL
« on: 2014-03-06, 15:02:58 »Release code and create a competitor for themselves? Heh, autodesk would never do that
If they could not make it sustainable why should a competitor succeed ? :)
Ever considered the fact they didnt buy it to continue sell it but just to own the tech/patents?
10
[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: Skin shader
« on: 2014-02-23, 11:43:25 »You mean subsurface scattering?
Brazil had a standard skin shader, it was pretty useless. I think it would be better to add a standard SSS shader and manually tweak it to mimic skin, wax, or whatever you like. It will be implemented for sure.
The reason why other renderers offer a specialised skinshader is because you cant do reaslistic skin with a standard SSS material (unless you are going to model every layer separately).
11
[Max] General Discussion / Re: 2 minutes of caustics
« on: 2014-02-22, 14:25:16 »
Weird... PPM has no colored caustics and VCM has noisy reflection of caustics (i thought this was actually VCM's strong point?)...
12
[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: VCM not so efficient with blurry refractions? (fireflies bzzzzzz)
« on: 2014-02-18, 05:21:18 »
Awesome! I guess i cant download the version with the fix (yet?)
13
Gallery / Re: Corona Test #5
« on: 2013-12-18, 12:34:40 »
I may be wrong but i thought that using HD wasnt unbiased... not that it matters really (imho the unbiased rendering thing is overrated)
14
[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: VCM not so efficient with blurry refractions? (fireflies bzzzzzz)
« on: 2013-11-19, 23:48:48 »What exactly is wrong with that picture?
With that last one?
Notice the hazy/foggy look around the dof... especially at the top of the object, where it is brightest.
Its almost like a glow or ghosting of the object going on.
I think some dof samples might be spread too much out or something?
Is that VCM or regular path tracing?
Those last 2 (with the white diffuse shader) were done with bdpt, the vcm option was not selected.
15
[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: VCM not so efficient with blurry refractions? (fireflies bzzzzzz)
« on: 2013-11-19, 17:50:34 »What exactly is wrong with that picture?
With that last one?
Notice the hazy/foggy look around the dof... especially at the top of the object, where it is brightest.
Its almost like a glow or ghosting of the object going on.
I think some dof samples might be spread too much out or something?
Pages: [1] 2