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 - BigAl3D

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Hotfix Question
« on: Yesterday at 18:52:57 »
Thanks for the replies. I guess I should've mentioned he's running r19 at the moment. Mostly likely, this won't happen. It's a job he got thrown into which is currently set up with Physical C4D. Might need to stay on the cartoon side so Corona might not work here (he's still learning).

By the way, if you grab the link for Hotfix 2 and change the 2 to a 1, you can still grab the older version. ;-)

[C4D] General Discussion / Hotfix Question
« on: Yesterday at 06:25:35 »
A friend of mine that I got him into Corona, might need to send a job to a render farm. He was running v4 of Corona so told him to update the latest Hotfix 2. He informed me the render farm (not sure which one yet) supports Hotfix 1. Knowing he's not using a specific tool that only appeared in Hotfix 2, would he get into any issues rendering a Hotfix 2-saved scene on a Hotfix 1 render farm?

I know he can install the older one, but if he really doesn't have to...

Even if it could run the latest version, I guarantee that old iMac will slow your overall render times. I stopped using those machines (we still have a few) years ago since they were just too slow. Your faster machines will be waiting while that thing finishes. It's just not worth it. Better off letting the newer machines do the work.

[C4D] Bug Reporting / Re: Layered Material
« on: 2021-10-04, 22:22:20 »
I know this was a bug many versions ago, but has worked for quite a while. I just copied an object with a layered material (legacy) and pasted into a blank scene. Everything is fine. I then converted them all to Physical, copied and pasted into a new blank scene and gain, everything is fine.

Mac, R20, Corona 7 Hotfix 2.

Since I've never fully mastered the world of UV mapping, Cubic has been my dear friend. I know in some cases, that doesn't always work, but it usually does.

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Alpha image on material Errors
« on: 2021-10-02, 17:59:14 »
It appears you're doing it right, but obviously, you have missed one little item somewhere. Any chance you can post the scene? I did a quick test and everything works as it should. The displacement is rough since this is a low-res alpha.

Forgot to ask what version of Corona are you using? Maybe there was an issue in the old version.

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Plants in Corona
« on: 2021-10-02, 15:25:01 »
Well alright then. Question answered.

Wait. I spoke too soon. That tree on the left you posted was just too wacky not to try it for myself. I grabbed a maple tree from the content browser. The only other thing I did was add a darker green to the diffuse channel and hit multiply. The green was way too light for my brain to handle.

As you can see, I have three versions here. The C4D tree renders just fine for me. The two Corona trees have some very dark shadows going on the bark for some reason. I'm just saying that in a pinch and when you're using a lot of tree models, and you're on a tight budget, AND you don't have time or the expertise to fix the materials, a C4D version could work. Having said that, many of those trees are not the most realistic looking things. Not enough leaves, too many in the same direction, etc., but at a distance works.

I just noticed that these trees, even the converted ones, are not casting proper shadows. The second image I added a sun object. Previous was just HDRI.

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Plants in Corona
« on: 2021-10-01, 20:41:34 »
Unless you're getting close and personal, why not leave the materials as C4D materials? Corona will still render them as they are. Will they render faster using Corona materials? Just curious. I might do some testing for myself.

[C4D] I need help! / Re: Alpha image on material Errors
« on: 2021-09-29, 16:04:54 »
Is that a render or just the viewport? If it just the viewport, then there are know issues with the previews in the non-rendered windows.

I mean for a serious interior with lots of complexity and a huge number of passes, you're asking just too much from that M1 Mini. I love Macs too, but that's just not something I would try. I am running a 2017 iMac Pro and it holds its own with rendering. In my personal test, rendering the Grapes scene from the content browser, the M1 Mini 16GB renders (8 min) that scene a bit faster than a loaded trashcan Mac Pro 18-core (8.5 min). The iMac Pro renders that scene a lot faster. Somewhere around 3.19 min. Half the time. I think I already mentioned this.

I know a Threadripper CPU will blow mine away, but you will also need to drop serious cash on it. Threadripper Pro 3995WX, 64 cores / 128, $5,489. That's just the CPU. So you have to decide how much your time is worth vs what you can charge your clients. You might find that within a few months, you can earn enough from paid work to pay that beast off. In that case, it's a no-brainer. Drop 8 or 9 thousand dollars on your workhorse. Makes sense.

I will also add that you need to learn what are the minimum settings that you need for Corona to produce the quality your clients need. I know you can't share the image you are working on, but make sure not to overdue the quality settings. There is a point of where the additional passes won't really increase the quality of the image, at least to the human eye. This also leads into the question which you should always ask a client "What is the final image being used for?" For example, if you're rendered image will be printed on a large banner or billboard to viewed from far away, you can get away with very small render sizes. Not only the size of the image, but the number of passes too. Many types of printing processes, such as inkejets, can mask many of the artifacts you may see up close. I also recommend finding out the final vendor that will use your image and asking them directly about the specs for your image. Best way to learn.

A full page ad for Architectural Digest using 150 line screen for images, you need to crank up the passes. Sorry for the rambling post, but my mind won't stop.

Yeah, I'm curious too what they will find.

On the Mac issue, we just added a loaded Mac Mini in one work station. Mostly for video editing, but I tested it to see how well it rendered with C4D to see if it's worth it to use as a render client. I always use the Grapes.c4d scene in the content browser as a real-world benchmark. The Mini is slightly faster than the old Trashcan™ to give you an idea. It rendered that scene in a little over 8 min. The iMac Pro I'm using right now, cranks out that scene in 3:19. Of course C4D is running natively on the iMac Pro and under Rosetta on the Mini.

Can't argue with going with PC and Threadripper CPU. Those things are blazing fast. Expensive, but time is money right? Good luck.

I think the M1 strategy will serve Apple well, and I'm waiting for a pro model next year, but the M1 Mini is not up to the task of that type of rendering and I love using Macs (minus falling behind on speed over the years). You're running C4D via Rosetta 2 so it's being emulated which slows things down. You're using an old version of Corona which is slower. If you're already paying for Corona, why not update to v7? They have fixed a lot of things since v5. Many people use textures that are larger than they need. If there is a clock in the background for example, I've seen people use a 700 MB JPG for the face of the clock. Keeping in mind that clock only uses about 50x50 pixels of screen size. Corona will have to load that 700 MB file into RAM, then down-sample the image to 50x50 pixels since that's all that is required for the final image. This is true with ANY render engine by the way.

Open up the texture folder for that scene and sort by SIZE. See what you have lurking in there and see how large it's being used in the scene. You might be surprised

Is this project a paid client for you? I'd love to see the room to get a better feel.

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Corona for C4D You Tube
« on: 2021-08-27, 17:34:17 »
I'm with you here. They say Corona is the same in either app, but it's very different as far as the dialogs and where to find certain settings. It makes it difficult to follow at times. Just seeing the Max interface makes me appreciate C4D all the more.

The only issue I can see in your animation is from the striped lines in the oven glass. I believe the "flickering" you're seeing is those lines are interacting with over edges/lines inside the oven or reflected in the glass and creative a moiré patter effect. Back in my print days, the only way to remove the patter was to alter the angles of things that are interacting. If a TV host makes the mistake of wearing a fine patterned jacket on air, the patter with interact with the pixels of the camera. This is way you will see mostly solid colors on TV or at least larger patterns.

One test you can do to see if I am correct, is to take your material on the oven door and rotate it several degrees and render a short test. If I am right, that flicker will either get better, worse or perhaps disappear but that is unlikely since the camera is moving and so the angles are constantly changing.

So my theory can easily tie in with @maru's idea of increasing the passes and/or render size. The more pixels, the smoother the result. There's a catch. You can render at 4k and it looks perfect, but when you sample down to HD or any online compression, you may re-introduce some of the flicker. Most likely, it will be less but also softer output overall which could be good or less good.

The rest of the scene seems smooth to me, even the sparkles on the stove burners are smooth. I believe there's a way to render just a portion of the frame. Maybe in that output, you can crank up the passes or what the others have suggested to reduce the render times.

I have extensive experience in print and digital mediums. It is best to only think about the pixels when rendering in C4D and not inches or centimeter. This can get confusing for people not very experienced in resolution. Just think pixels. It will simplify things. I'll explain below using the standards here in the States. This will sound confusing at first, but it will all make sense when you get it.

When a client asks me for an image or graphic, the first question I ask is "What are you using it for and how large with the end size be?"

If the reply is "For a magazine ad. The image will be 6"w x 4"h. (always clarify the width and height since many will give you the height number first).
I know most publications ask for 300dpi (some are lower or higher, just ask them or a specification sheet). 300dpi is a good starting point and will be good for most applications. So it's simple math from there. 6" x 300 = 1,800 pixels and 4" x 300 = 1,200 pixels. So for every inch, you have 300 pixels. See how that works? So this render will be 1,800 x 1,200 pixels at 72. We will change this below.

Assuming you're using this image for a print layout, you should take one more step with it. If you import the render into InDesign as-is, it will appear approx 3 times larger than you need since your render is set to 72dpi. You have two options. First is scale it back down to the final size in InDesign (or whatever app). This will effectively crunch more pixels into a smaller space, which "increases" the resolution at the smaller size. The best thing to do is open the image in Photoshop. Go to Image --> Image Size. This step is VERY important. UN-check the Resample option. Turn it OFF. Now change that resolution right above that to 300 pixels/inch. Boom. Now when that image is placed in your layout, it will show at the proper size and resolution. This also helps the designer see that they should not scale the image much at all since the resolution begins to drop as it is scaled. You could always render larger so you can give a designer more flexibility. You might also ask if they need the final image as RGB or CMYK. If your image will be give to a designer, they can handle that. If it's to someone that doesn't know, better to provide it the final color space. Many printers convert images on their end to what they need, but your never know.

If the reply is "For a PowerPoint presentation that will be shown on our HD screen or projector at a meeting. The image will be full screen.
I know that everything on-screen is 72dpi. Set C4D's output to 1,920 x 1080 which is standard HD. Personally, I wouldn't worry about 4k or anything like that. The image will scale very nicely to 4k on a screen and especially a projector. If you want to be safe, then set it to 3840 x 2160. If you're rendering an animation, this can make a huge difference in time.
Assuming they have decent technology and are not running Windows Vista or Mac OS 9 on really old PCs, then the client should be happy with your file.

I don't know the standard dpi settings for using centimeters, but I see an A2 image is 16.5" x 23.375" or 4,950px X 7,013px.

Sorry for the long post, but this is where most newer designers stumble and make the wrong size graphic. Please ask if you're confused about something. I know it took me a while to understand it completely.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28