Messages

4126

Gallery / Re: WHITE HOUSE

« on: 2014-10-13, 14:34:08 »

In my eyes this is okay work... Sry but i dont agree with the rest :)  The outside image is the best i think.
But the rest could use alot more work to reach greater realism.

LOL are you serious? This is far much then simple rendering, this is how talent looks like, from start to finish, maybe there is something that could be fixed or changed etc... but if you didn't work on commercial project i am sure you cant even imagine how that process work(pressure, timeline, client wishes etc...)  so from your point of view i am sure this is just ok work as you said it but your comment is somewhat malicious as if you are not able just to say(OK) and stop at that point, you certainly are not in any obligation to give vague comment how it needs more work... Either you give constructive criticism or you keep your mouth shut... Just so you avoid bed reputation... And before you say or think i am shitting over your opinion(as you are in fact have every right on one) i am in no obligation to give you lessons in decent human behavior. So give some respect to fellow artist and this doesn't have anything with part that you CAN or CANT do better then him. This is gallery and if anyone is to give similar type comments you wouldn't have anyone posting here...   

... ?

I didn't read anything negative in his comment, but simply stating some honest opinion. What's with this over-reaction ?

Should people be afraid to say anything outside of pure congratulations ? Don't we have stickied thread with rule to avoid it ? I am glad he values his honesty more that "forum reputation". And you're btw speaking to some of the very best artist on this forum at all (DIA), I would rather listen to his opionion because this guy is no less than Bertrand or other top people. He definitely know what he speaks of.

I do not like it either, it's technically nice but I find the mood not fitting, it's far too monotone even for restricted palette.

4127

General CG Discussion / Re: Unreal Engine 4 for ArchViz - Thoughts?

« on: 2014-10-13, 14:04:36 »

I am also exploring the possibility to use Unreal 4 for architectural work. Maybe I am wrong, but Lumion will have to change his game.

World is not black and white, they're not even targeting the same group of users at all. They don't compete against each other.

4128

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: 2 sided material

« on: 2014-10-11, 16:34:19 »

No, the problem is that Corona (but also other renderers, like MentalRay, or Maxwell,etc..) use different 'translucency' compared to Vray2Sided. Vray2sided map is BW because it only takes intensity from it, but the color is still derived from diffuse of material.
In Corona, the translucency map drives both the intensity (through average luminosity) but also color. So vegetation will always use colored map in translucency but I write that in the above post.

4129

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Euro Coin test with Corona renderer (work in progress)

« on: 2014-10-10, 19:20:44 »

New rendering... Still trying to figure out that what I am going to do with this model.

Try to pay for licence, maybe it will work :- ) Looks good

4130

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Juraj's WIPS/Theory/Questions //Update with few PDFs from my recent presentation

« on: 2014-10-10, 19:01:54 »

Looks good! I like that bulge map on TV screen, nice detail.

:- ) Funny thing about the space was, it has very cheap TV. It's very plastic and small, you won't find one like that anywhere, so I just made it like simple turbosmooth box in few minutes, but with wavy screen.
But it does catch attention for 3D guys and bring slight realism.

4131

[Max] Resolved Feature Requests / Re: 2 sided material

« on: 2014-10-10, 18:22:31 »

I don't have my scene open but vegetation shader is so much easier in Corona and looks far better than the one in Vray (but not as super good as Maxwell :- )...but like 90perc. of it).

Single shader:

Diffuse: {Optional}"CoronaFrontBackMap" Front:Dark,satured Back:Light,desaturated
Glossy: {Optional}"CoronaFrontBackMap" Front: More glossy Back: More matte

Translucency: From Spring to Summer {0.3--0.1} I use maybe lower than some people.. The map is brighter than diffuse, and more yellowish in hue

Bumo {Optional but highly suggested} Larger shapes reading normal map in "CoronaNormalTex".

Works absolutely great. Compared to Vray, you keep nice highlights with translucency, just like read world (and unlike "paper" feel)

edit:fixed a typo

4132

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona- Surface details and glosiness??

« on: 2014-10-10, 18:15:14 »

Juraj, could you share the modified file for the previews? I have Grant's file, but a smaller sized one would be better of course. If not no biggie.

Uf, since it's still mostly his file I don't want to share modifications outside, I apologize. But just open Zbrush and press decimate, or use native 3dsMax "ProOptimizer" modifier, it's not as good, but it works too.
I hope it's fine.

4133

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Juraj's WIPS/Theory/Questions //Update with few PDFs from my recent presentation

« on: 2014-10-10, 18:10:14 »

interiors is a little bit dark but i know you will take care of it !

What do you mean, I haven't posted any interior yet, but here is one, still in heavy WIP (but nice 5k render heh).

Do you mean the interior when you're outside ? Have a look how it look in real: {photo attach} This is what happend under direct sun

4134

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: My first rendering using corona

« on: 2014-10-10, 00:41:48 »

Please stop petting people by throwing them advices like the "realism" added by the vignette :D, I know you had good intentions Rawalanche, but vignettes and abberations wont make this picture even remotely realistic without improving the topics stated above.

I absolutely know what you mean by this :- ) I often see it in critique questions, where people nitpick small stuff, but don't see the Forrest. I also agree with your whole point overall, it's something I often wrote back in time in CGArch, but I later stopped.

But that was actually quite good sarcasm in Rawalanache's post instead ;- D


And back on topic: I consider self-critique to be better than outsider's opinion because you will need to use it more often. Start with lots of tutorials that exist before you try for critique in forum. There are tons of good A-to-Z tutorials that will improve your skills in avery aspect. Then just then post stuff. {Viscorbel, Archviz vol1/2 from Evermotion, Making-offs on Ronen site,etc..}

4135

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona- Surface details and glosiness??

« on: 2014-10-10, 00:16:36 »

Noted.Thanks again,Juraj.
Would anyone know if Corona devs intend to introduce new alternative shaders soon?

I think they have enough crucial and more important stuff to do right now :- ) But, some day sooner than too much later would be great

4136

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona- Surface details and glosiness??

« on: 2014-10-10, 00:11:43 »

I know that since forever :- ) But I don't think you can swap the lighting at the moment if you want to keep the advanced rendered preview in Corona.

I btw optimalized Grant's Ball in Zbrush to about 10perc.. he uses CAD converted geometry so it's super heavy. You don't want 100MB geometry as preview piece.
I attach some stuff from my recent presentations.

4137

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona- Surface details and glosiness??

« on: 2014-10-09, 19:15:52 »

I get the basics inside material editor, that's the great with Corona's rendere mat preview. It's not super accurate because it has weird large Area lights that make gauging proper glossiness very hard but, it does the job well.
But then I test the material in real-conditions, where I intend to use it in scene, or item I plan to use it on. Because you don't know if your material behaves like it should unless it's in proper, controlled environment.

For example, my most complicated material was Corten or rusty steel. I had like 10 photographies of how it was used in space I recreated and it always behaved differently, with sun, no sun, interior, exterior. So I always did a short series of test renders in every condition to see if the behaviour matched. Artificial material scene would not tell me that.

Regarding the Disney's parameter amount, I think they simply wanted faster control over layered speculars (tint, thin film, sheen,etc..) without the need to manually create this layers as Blend material. If you use them, you have them exposed, if you don't need them, don't touch it. But it's there, easy to use directly with 0-1 artistic control. Easy to understand, flexible to work with. No, it's not for Cartoons :- ) The stylization or style, doesn't matter.

4138

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona- Surface details and glosiness??

« on: 2014-10-09, 18:09:40 »

The PBR (Disney based with metalness attribute) shader sorts of does the second thing in games interpretation (like UE4) though. 'Roughness' is really meant only for micro surface variance, something that could really be lots of high-frequency detail, while bump slot (in game engines often left purely just for Normal map) is meant for the low-frequency slightly different detail (very low relief, or bigger scratches, dents,etc, details that don't necessarily change the microscopic structure of material but are nonetheless very visible by our eyes). I too find it very handy.

But it's fine to achieve the same but it's more eye-balling and more tweaking with Corona. It's just important to not overdo things (like super strong bump map containing every detail). Always think of where the details should go (Darker diffuse appear more reflective, so use that not only pure reflectance channel, Reflectance channel can be used as mask for non-reflective parts (like where dirt/grit resides), Glossy should contain the variance between matt and specular parts, Bump should have detail noticeable by eyes, like big scratches or fabric structure,etc..).

When I do materials I always think of 'Bertrand's rule' : "Once I come with something I like, I tone it down". (not that I am sucesful doing it :- D but I try to keep it in mind)

4139

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona- Surface details and glosiness??

« on: 2014-10-09, 17:17:40 »

Glossiness map. In pure PBR approach, specular map would be unecessary outside of mask for lerping or metals, but in Corona and similar renderer you ought to use both for best results. Still, it's glossy that takes priority for variation.

In glossy workflow 1=RGB255, so white parts of texture will be "glossy" (super stupid and innaccurate name...), sharp highlights with clearly readable reflection and black will make the surface appear rough/matte, with wider, weaker highlights and unreadable reflection.

Regarding wood, wood does actually often have anisotrophy, dictated by grain but in most render engines you set this with anisotrophy paramater, bump/glossy map alone would not create the effect sufficiently. It's rather subtle often, better not overdo unless you have clear reference that you follow.

4140

[C4D] General Discussion / Re: optimization and AA BUGS

« on: 2014-10-09, 00:11:15 »

Good tip re the clamping.

Juraj, do portals make a big difference in speed/quality? We don't have them in c4d version yet but I have encountered more severe issues trying to light a basement render only lit by a couple of sky lights. It wasn't very pass efficient and was struggling compared to vray. But I was thinking if only a small proportion of the rays are getting in then no wonder it's slow and I think that's where portals help, right?

Thanks

I used them only two times, but it was in scenarios where the windows were comparately small compared to house (like the Paris apartment). I don't think it made the passes go faster but it was cleaner in lesser passes. But I didn't do any exact comparison, so I can't tell you how much quantitatively was it better. But Michal Timko in this forum this and looked like good improvement.