Messages

61

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Corona Render Elements with custom filetype per element.

« on: 2017-07-28, 15:50:02 »

From my experience, EXR file format is actually quite efficient at storing masks, as long as you don't go full float 32bit exr, which is rarely ever needed. I remember my 16bit EXR masks having sizes comparable to jpgs :)

62

[Max] Resolved Bugs / Re: Geometry time BUG

« on: 2017-07-28, 11:57:57 »

It seems like Preparing Lights phase is not categorized into any of the time rows. I guess no one expected this phase to ever take any significant amount of time :)

63

Gallery / Re: Product / Interior Mixture Visuals

« on: 2017-07-26, 17:37:20 »

That is some beautiful level of detail. Had I seen these in some catalog, I would have never guessed these are not photos.

64

[Max] General Discussion / Re: CScatter - Density parameter weird behavior

« on: 2017-07-26, 17:24:16 »

I already discussed this with Ondra some time ago. The best case scenario would be to have what Multiscatter had, two-parameter density setup which defines roughly X instances per square Y units.

65

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona v1.3 vs 1.7

« on: 2017-07-26, 08:53:56 »

No, adaptivity works the way it should. It's just not right to assume adaptivity means faster rendering. What adaptivity does is ensuring the rendered image converges more evenly.

You can see that on Cecofuli's second test. Compare 1.7 adaptivity on and adaptivity off columns. You can see that adaptivity off makes area around the door and chair cleaner, but area in DoF and area where the bronze sculpture touches the floor noisier. Adaptivity on makes noise level roughly the same across the entire image, so area around the door and white chair has about the same amount of noise as the area around the sculpture touching the floor and scultpure in DoF.

Practical way to think about it is following:

Previously, when Corona did not have adaptivity, you would render your image for 1 hour, and it would be quite clean, but there would be a few hotstops of noise, which would take many more passes to resolve, so to get completely and evenly clean image, you would need to wait 4 hours.

Now that Corona has adaptivity, after that 1 hour, you may get an image, that is more noisy on the areas where adaptivity off was cleaner, but less noisy on the areas where adaptivity off was a lot noisier, so instead of taking 3 more hours, it may now take just 1 hour to get completely clean image. Therefore, to achieve relatively noise-free image, without any hotspots of noise, it can now take just half of the rendertime. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but generally, it's significant improvement.

66

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona v1.3 vs 1.7

« on: 2017-07-25, 22:56:02 »

If you want to take filtering out of equation, it's better to set filter type to none rather than width to 1. There is a very slight possibility that filter set to 1 in 1.3 may actually be adding to the noise :)

But other than that, it's what I suspected. You can see on the new test that adaptivity makes some places more noisy, while other places cleaner, generally making the noise level more even across the image. It looks like corona's adaptivity tends to prioritize darker places a bit more. Maybe that could be somehow tweaked in the future :)

67

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona v1.3 vs 1.7

« on: 2017-07-25, 14:03:08 »

Well, I did try to take it into photoshop, and blur the 1.7 result about as much as 1.3 one, and it still appeared significantly noisier, even with the slight blur. Blur is not a denoising magic bullet, especially in such a small amount. Of course, in majority of cases, adaptivity helps, that's why it's on by default, but there still may be some cases, where it focuses sampling more on different places. It can often produce images that are noisier on certain places, to ensure noise level is even across the image.

The most obvious step in noise level is between 1.3 and 1.4. Adaptivity was introduced in 1.4, so it would not be unreasonable to assume adaptivity could have impact on it, and re-run the test with it disabled, if Cecofuli has the time to do so.

And lastly, I think it's actually easy to judge how noisy the image is - by just looking at it :) Ultimately, we deliver our images to clients, who don't really care about what the analytic noise level is, but how it looks to their eyes, and I bet if you shown this image to random group of non-cg people, majority of them would consider 1.3 to be the cleanest.

So, if there's any chance of performance regression since 1.3, even if it was just in very specific scenes, it's really worth investigating it :)

68

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Daily Builds 1.7

« on: 2017-07-25, 12:02:26 »

EDIT:

Yep, sorry to see it go. It was useful in many cases.

69

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona v1.3 vs 1.7

« on: 2017-07-25, 11:59:30 »

1.3 one doesn't have just different image filtering, it is simply more clean - less noisy, that's it.

My guess would be it's caused by adaptivity. Would be worth running one more test with adaptivity off.

70

[Max] I need help! / Re: Do you Halo?

« on: 2017-07-22, 10:19:55 »

In PS :
If your halo is simply black or white, Photoshop can remove it automatically. After you’ve deleted the background, select the layer with the object of interest on it and then choose Layer > Matting > Remove Black Matte or Remove White Matte.

I know but that is not a solution for animation or hundreds of images that Im about to produce.

If you are doing animation or producing large quantities of images, then photoshop won't be a good choice in the first place. So you can just save EXR and use a software that actually handles alpha correctly - unlike photoshop :)

71

Hardware / Re: Don't recommend Ryzen

« on: 2017-07-14, 10:56:35 »

At 3.8mhz it's still unstable in my case. It could be memory, but I never had problems with intel...

If it runs at just 3.8mhz then you should be indeed concerned and RMA your chip asap ;) And you could replace it with some 386 to get almost 9x better performance :)

72

[Max] General Discussion / Re: IR Subsampling question: slow when with animated camera. Why?

« on: 2017-07-13, 16:31:42 »

Because moving timeline causes Corona to re-parse the entire scene from scratch, and currently, there is no way to avoid it.

I proposed a "lock" feature for camera animation previews, which when enabled, would freeze updates of everything in IR except camera position. It would work for camera animation previews, but not for animation of anything else in IR.

73

About this Forum / Re: Daily Builds 1.7 thread locked

« on: 2017-07-13, 15:10:11 »

It looks like Rawalanche locked it by mistake, I unlocked it.

I did? :O I had no idea I can do that. I don't recall even clicking any button remotely resembling lock :O

74

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Hair shader playground and feedback

« on: 2017-07-11, 22:12:01 »

Yes I know that. But 490 000 rays/s on a dual xeon 2683 v3 (so 28 cores / 56 threads), on approx. 1200x900px is really really slow.

Make sure you are rendering hair as planes, not cylinders, and definitely make sure you are not using any opacity mapping. These two things can slow rendering down extremely.

75

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: Daily Builds 1.7

« on: 2017-07-11, 11:50:35 »

I made animated grass with forest pack (5.4.0) and I used random samples to offset the animation of the 4 source objects (I add an animated blend modifier).
In viewport I see the animation with offset but on render Corona didn't see the random samples option and the objects moves all at the same time.

Hi, can you contact us about this at support@corona-renderer.com?

It's a bug, which I did not get to reporting of yet. Basically, Corona ignores animation modes of ForestPack. There are several, which for example randomly offset animation per instance.