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 - vlado

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Collaberation tool Corona
« on: 2022-11-11, 12:17:53 »
(yes, this was real vlado who couldnt log in on his main account, we fixed that ;))
Thanks, Ondra :D

Best regards,
Vlado

2
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 17:26:50 »
And sorry to say... but from FStorm I see images from at user levels - and it is immediately visible that the engine has a more photoreal way to calculate light, contrasts and colors.
I'm sure I will regret jumping into this thread, but I feel I have to say this. No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results. They are very nice images for sure and it's fine if people prefer them (even though they always feel a little off and too cold to me) but they are not "photorealistic".

Best regards,
Vlado
(hiding for cover)

3
Hardware / Re: Threadripper Builds
« on: 2020-01-07, 20:38:03 »
Quote
I'd like the see the rendering benchmarks switch over to time based scores like Corona and Blender our because seeing some random 25,399 score is cool and all. But considering render time is what were interested in... maybe vray/cinebench use a score base cause its a big numbers thing that gamers like.

We use scores because they are more accurate - the current V-Ray benchmark runs for 1 minute and we count how many samples were computed in that time. Our previous version was time-based, but with the latest CPUs that time got down to a few seconds and in that case the statistical variation from different runs became quite large compared to the rendering time itself - which meant that the benchmark became less precise and less useful. With a time-based benchmark it was difficult to encompass all the different CPU configurations out there while still making sure that the benchmark completes in a reasonable amount of time. Switching to a score-based benchmark makes it more accurate and a bit more future-proof.

Best regards,
Vlado

4
Yes, Corona does have algorithms for efficient handling of multiple light sources (the "Adaptive light solver" option in the Corona performance settings), see here for more details:
https://cgg.mff.cuni.cz/~jaroslav/papers/2016-directillum/index.htm

Best regards,
Vlado

5
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Corona opacity map into Vray
« on: 2019-11-12, 21:19:36 »
This is something that we need to fix on the V-Ray side; will make a note about it.

Best regards,
Vlado

6
Even if vray has expired, it will work? Are you definitely sure?
Yes, I'm sure :)

Best regards,
Vlado

7
For the converter to work, you need to have V-Ray installed although it doesn't need to be licensed. The trial version will work just fine, even if it has expired.

Besides using the converter, Corona can render directly many V-Ray materials, even without V-Ray installed - although you will not be able to edit them.

Best regards,
Vlado

8
I would argue that Cinebench is not particularly indicative of the real-world performance of CPUs; I know that AMD has a tendency to use it because it produces better numbers for their CPUs, but Cinema4D's integrated renderer that Cinebench is based on is somewhat outdated now. From the various benchmark results floating around the release of the Ryzen 3 CPUs, both Corona and V-Ray seem to produce very similar results compared to Intel CPUs.

Best regards,
Vlado

9
Reinstalling Corona will fix this (also make sure to reinstall the OptiX denoiser specifically). NVidia has a fix for this type of issues, but it will be coming a bit further down the road.

Best regards,
Vlado

10
The Corona denoiser requires some additional render elements that V-Ray does not currently generate (color variance and such). One of our developers is working on improving V-Ray's own denoiser and part of that work might require to generate those render elements anyways, so it might actually be possible in the future to open an OpenEXR file in the corona image editor and denoise it.

Best regards,
Vlado

11
NVidia will actually ships the denoiser as part of the OptiX 5.0 SDK so anyone can integrate it in their application. I've looked at the OptiX samples briefly and it doesn't seem too complicated to use it. The denoiser can be used separately - the renderer itself doesn't need to be done with OptiX or use GPUs at all.

However keep in mind that the OptiX denoiser *requires* an NVidia GPU in order to run. If you wanted to use it on a render farm for final frames, you'll need GPUs on the farm (which is what NVidia wants, for sure :))

Best regards,
Vlado

12
It's a V-Ray issue; we will release a patch soon but if you need a fix before that, you can email me to vlado@chaosgroup.com or register for another trial.

Best regards,
Vlado

13
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Corona with Vray code
« on: 2017-11-07, 20:35:09 »
There is no V-Ray code in Corona besides the DMC sampler. The DMC sampler doesn't really affect the aspects of the image you mentioned.

[I actually expected that all Corona issues from now on would be indiscriminately blamed on V-Ray. It took longer than I thought it would, but here we are :)]

Best regards,
Vlado

14
[C4D] General Discussion / Re: Bump...
« on: 2017-10-09, 13:22:26 »
This is rather a core thing. So we can merilly ask VRay about their bump-mapping solution. The thing is it will need to be implemented in the Corona core too (i.e. not in the C4D plugin).
Yup, the bump mapping is imlemented in V-Ray core. Most of the code is actually included with the public V-Ray SDK.

Best regards,
Vlado

15
Extremely curious if this would eventually mean an easy, straightforward access & workflow w/ Phoenix FD.
That's the plan, yes.

Best regards,
Vlado

Pages: [1] 2 3