Chaos Corona Forum
Chaos Corona for 3ds Max => [Max] General Discussion => Topic started by: guest_guest on 2016-03-23, 16:59:52
-
Hi,
why Bucket Renderer was removed from 1.4 ? :\
-
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,7239.msg72291.html#msg72291
-
is this for real???
i've read that page and there was no answer or I just missed it.... don't remove bucket rendering please... sometimes only half a bucket is enough to check things... and now I'll we'll need to wait for progressive to grind through the region ? :/
What you'll gain through adaptive, you'll loose on workflow setbacks.
or am I wrong?
-
is this for real???
i've read that page and there was no answer or I just missed it.... don't remove bucket rendering please... sometimes only half a bucket is enough to check things... and now I'll we'll need to wait for progressive to grind through the region ? :/
What you'll gain through adaptive, you'll loose on workflow setbacks.
or am I wrong?
For quick checks there is IR. For Regions, there is region render.
Bucket's only real feature was old adaptivity, but it was only a color Threshold check, so it was totally replaced, improved and thus replaced by 1.4 adaptivity. There is no more upside to Bucket render and every workflow improvment you could have is somewhere else in a feature.
-
Buckets used exactly the same rendering method as progressive (except for adaptivity, which is now improved). So you can use region render and everything should be fine. Maybe buckets will be still available via string options (not sure).
-
Ondra about bucket renderer:
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,7239.msg72014.html#msg72014
Good Luck
BTW: This should be moved to General Discussion
-
is this for real???
i've read that page and there was no answer or I just missed it.... don't remove bucket rendering please... sometimes only half a bucket is enough to check things... and now I'll we'll need to wait for progressive to grind through the region ? :/
What you'll gain through adaptive, you'll loose on workflow setbacks.
or am I wrong?
Personally, I have to agree. I think the option of having even the most basic form of bucket mode is welcome. It probably comes down to an individual's workflow but I when I need fast and precise results I usually region render a certain part of the scene with bucket mode. Sometimes I know exactly when a material is off when one bucket completes and I can just cancel everything and do the adjustments.
Now, with potentially having to use the progressive renderer for that, I might have to do a lot more region render adjustments, especially if I am after quick snippets that look very close to the final result (in terms of having a low amount of noise).
I mean yeah, it depends on person to person but the bucket mode still seems to have a purpose - to me at least.
Just putting it out there guys :)
-
is this for real???
i've read that page and there was no answer or I just missed it.... don't remove bucket rendering please... sometimes only half a bucket is enough to check things... and now I'll we'll need to wait for progressive to grind through the region ? :/
What you'll gain through adaptive, you'll loose on workflow setbacks.
or am I wrong?
Personally, I have to agree. I think the option of having even the most basic form of bucket mode is welcome. It probably comes down to an individual's workflow but I when I need fast and precise results I usually region render a certain part of the scene with bucket mode. Sometimes I know exactly when a material is off when one bucket completes and I can just cancel everything and do the adjustments.
Now, with potentially having to use the progressive renderer for that, I might have to do a lot more region render adjustments, especially if I am after quick snippets that look very close to the final result (in terms of having a low amount of noise).
I mean yeah, it depends on person to person but the bucket mode still seems to have a purpose - to me at least.
Just putting it out there guys :)
This does not make absolutely any sense at all. New adaptive progressive in 1.4 will be a bit faster than bucket rendering in any previous Corona version. With that in mind, if you make small region in a size of one bucket, then you will get your feedback no slower than with bucket rendering. If you make your region larger than one bucket, to see more area, it will still take exactly same amount of time to render that area with progressive.
-
@Rawalanche,
I totally digg ya but let me try to rephrase my point in a different way so maybe you'll understand what I am talking about.
Say for example, you are rendering a frosted glass region which takes a lot of render power to get to acceptable passes. With the option of having the bucket mode I can set the number of samples to (about)50 and let it start rendering through the region. After 2 buckets I'll probably see if my reflection color, glossiness and all of that basic stuff is good and set. At that point I can cancel it and either fix it or switch to the full progressive mode.
If I want to see a larger portion of the region I'll just let it render to about 50% of that render region. By that time I'll have a clearer idea if my material is gonna work or not. If not, I can render it in its entirety and switch to the progressive renderer the next time I want to see a preview.
On the other hand, if I did a progressive render region I'd need to wait a lot more just to have an idea of how my glossiness is working (for example, right?). That, or set two different regions.
Yeah, rendering the whole render region with adaptivity + denoising would be faster but sometimes you don't need that. And if you do realize you need it, you can let the buckets finish and then for the preview you switch to the progressive renderer.
You can also take into account how buckets can be helpful at 5k and super precise displacement, meaning I can quickly see the end result of one bucket and the ability of having the option to let it continue rendering through the whole region without canceling the entire render just to re-set the render region and the render engine calculate all of that displacement again.
I'm just saying, some of us are apparently used to working like that. For some perception comes into play as well (seeing the final image without the progressive passes)... I mean, to each his own really. Personally, I really like both modes :)
I guess it is harder to explain that I thought, ha!
-
Ondra about bucket renderer:
https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,7239.msg72014.html#msg72014
Good Luck
BTW: This should be moved to General Discussion
i hope to see Bucket feature in 1.4 , means that the power of bucket adaptive + adaptive feature of 1.4 + denoiser !!
-
It does not work like this, you cannot "add" two adaptivity solutions to get twice as fast solution. The bucket renderer and bucket adaptivity is gone and not coming back.
-
It does not work like this, you cannot "add" two adaptivity solutions to get twice as fast solution. The bucket renderer and bucket adaptivity is gone and not coming back.
OK!! Ondra killed this topic !!! :D :))
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1361637425_arnold-shotgun.gif)
-
I totally digg ya but let me try to rephrase my point in a different way so maybe you'll understand what I am talking about.
.....
I still didn't get from your explanation the advantage of bucket mode.
Almost sounded like: If I render with progressive mode I need to wait 10 seconds until the render region clears out, but if I render with the bucket, I need to wait 10 seconds until the render region in the bucket clears out. So it's better.
Because 10 seconds are faster than 10 seconds. Or something :)
sounds almost like superstition :)
A similar case like this was some years ago on Steinberg forum. They changed the skin and UI colors for Cubase (audio multitrack app). And even though the engineers and programers themselves told the users the audio engine is the same, the users there contradicted themselves for days that the new version sounds better, others said no it sounds worse.. and so on)
-
this brings back warm memories from Alpha when the UI was not as polished as today... I remember threads where people were searching for (and found) optimal settings for parameters that were not internally connected to anything :D
-
@sebastian___
Well its useful to me even though I can't explain it (hah!). It works for me and apparently it does so for a few other people too :) No worries though ;)
-
I totally digg ya but let me try to rephrase my point in a different way so maybe you'll understand what I am talking about.
.....
I still didn't get from your explanation the advantage of bucket mode.
Almost sounded like: If I render with progressive mode I need to wait 10 seconds until the render region clears out, but if I render with the bucket, I need to wait 10 seconds until the render region in the bucket clears out. So it's better.
Because 10 seconds are faster than 10 seconds. Or something :)
sounds almost like superstition :)
A similar case like this was some years ago on Steinberg forum. They changed the skin and UI colors for Cubase (audio multitrack app). And even though the engineers and programers themselves told the users the audio engine is the same, the users there contradicted themselves for days that the new version sounds better, others said no it sounds worse.. and so on)
Don't call something you can't understand superstition, it's just about explaining it simply enough for all to understand.
You're not thinking far enough. You're thinking 100% rendered on 100% of the region. That is the same with bucket and progressive and you are right.
But with bucket you don't need that, you sometimes need only a small fraction rendered on 100% quality, in scene, to test materials.
It takes 10 seconds to clear a region on progressive for 64passess. For the same region, it takes just 1 second to render 10% part of that region on 64passes. By then you can maybe already see, for instance, if your glossiness map is okay and stop the render.... while on progressive you still need to wait the whole 10, maybe 9 seconds to clear the noise in the glossiness for the whole 100% of the image.
This demands for more small render regions that you need to do, the more you need to wait on parsing and building acc structure, so the whole process takes a lot longer.
Bucket mode should be updated to follow mouse ponter, so the checking would be even faster, without the need to do more render regions, and in my opinion should not be discarded as it seems - the lesser option in the adaptivity war.
Because, believe it or not, for some, bucket mode was not about adaptivity at all. I usually rendered 1render pass on 64initial passess, didn't even know bucket adaptivity ever worked...
Someone mentioned IR, but I don't know what kind of hardware you guys use, but on some consumer desktop it's useless for quality control in a built scene, way too many slowdowns, only usefull on shaderballs, small scenes or extremely small regions on large scenes.
If still not clear, .... I don't know how else to explain it without doing some video or a diagram for you :)
You're all thinking "adaptivity war", and me and nkilar are thinking "workflow optimization"
Still, we'll see what 1.4 brings us in terms of everything written on this topic.
-
Bucket mode should be updated to follow mouse ponter, so the checking would be even faster,
It's still not clear for me, but probably that's because I haven't worked with Corona and even less so with the old version with the bucket mode. But I was still curios and trying to understand/learn the benefit of a bucket mode vs progressive.
I was gonna mention that - if the bucket would follow the mouse pointer that would be indeed a benefit, but as far as I know only vray has that.
But this could be a nice feature request for Corona - a movable render region in the progressive render. So you can have a render region and able to move it, without pressing render again, and the renderer will start rendering that new region without clearing the previous region. Also able to adjust the size while rendering.
-
just saw this:
I am calm now. :)
great work :D
-
Agree with the above ! :)
-
some times when you have heavy scenes (architectural visualization for instance) and your machine is out of memory then the bucket render might be a solution.
-
Ondra, what if you bring bucket engine selection back to UI, but that mode wouldn't do anything more than simply revealing VFB in buckets? Would that make people happier? :]
-
Ondra, what if you bring bucket engine selection back to UI, but that mode wouldn't do anything more than simply revealing VFB in buckets? Would that make people happier? :]
I was thinking it could be a good idea too. So basically region render which would automatically jump to different places in a pattern. :)
(btw I asked Ondra about this some time ago, and the answer was nope)
-
Because it's ridiculous imho :- ) The moment you introduce "Placebo" feature, a considerable amount of people will assume it does cause a difference, even if the tooltip said otherwise.
-
im also a user who likes more bucket than progressive at least in 1.3 but if vray 3.4 have both progressive and buckets both with the same adaptivity i wonder why corona can't have this.
a bucket render with the new adaptivty from 1.4 would be sweet ,most users from vray never use progressive even if the results practically are the same i wonder why maybe we are too used to buckets.
-
im also a user who likes more bucket than progressive at least in 1.3 but if vray 3.4 have both progressive and buckets both with the same adaptivity i wonder why corona can't have this.
a bucket render with the new adaptivty from 1.4 would be sweet ,most users from vray never use progressive even if the results practically are the same i wonder why maybe we are too used to buckets.
There exists no technical benefit to bucket rendering.
As such, supporting two methods at the same time, that deliver the exact same result in the exact same time is time wasted developing new features.
Buckets were used to test out adaptivity in it's early stages. Now it is fully implemented and there is no need for the old and compared to know, simply bad adaptivity implementation.
But then again... (https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,96.msg73985.html#msg73985)
-
Lol at "placebo" features.
And next a second "render" button placed in the lower part of the screen. But this one has a green color. So maybe it will be faster ;)
-
A long time ago when I started a job as a 3D generalist, my supervisor told me that in order to make renders go faster, he opens the Windows task manager, and continuously holds down the F5 key.
This refreshed the CPU usage graph and made it look like the usage is more consistently at 100%.
Of course no one wants to hold down F5 all day so he cleverly automated the process by putting a weight on that keyboard key.
This taught me that developers can not rely on even the most basic assumptions about user understanding and behavior.
-
thank you SairesArt i understand that there is none now, i think it has more to do with the workflow rather than speed/quality.
-
There might be some psychological aspect in bucket rendering. You see the fully rendered image pop up square by square. Another thing is that you have to move the render region manually, and buckets do this automatically, but it's hard for me to think of any other "advantages". But maybe someone will eventually come up with a sensible reason. :)
my supervisor told me that in order to make renders go faster, he opens the Windows task manager, and continuously holds down the F5 key.
Holy shit. Did he actually force you to do this too? :D
I only remember someone telling me that randomly moving the mouse cursor over the screen speeds up installers. That could be psychological too, as it was probably less boring than just staring at the progress bar. Same thing with bucket rendering "follow mouse" option - the eventual rendering time of the whole image will be the same, but with the buckets following the cursor it's much more fun. ;)
...I wonder if we would get positive feedback about Corona's rendering speed after lowering the default VFB refresh time...
-
...I wonder if we would get positive feedback about Corona's rendering speed after lowering the default VFB refresh time...
And can it affect... ? The tooltip says something along those lines.
I lower it (or "rise" ) for high-res renders because I can't stand the stuttering but also because those renders take hours so such minute differences aren't worth. But then I forget to turn in back when I do quick tests and have to restart render...
-
...I wonder if we would get positive feedback about Corona's rendering speed after lowering the default VFB refresh time...
And can it affect... ? The tooltip says something along those lines.
Theoretically yes. Good idea for some tests.
I lower it (or "rise" ) for high-res renders because I can't stand the stuttering but also because those renders take hours so such minute differences aren't worth. But then I forget to turn in back when I do quick tests and have to restart render...
Maybe this could be controlled interactively in VFB?
-
[Offtopic]
my supervisor told me that in order to make renders go faster, he opens the Windows task manager, and continuously holds down the F5 key
Holy Moly, I thought I was just me experiencing such tech morons. Past friend used to mash F5 because he believed it sped up Windows's Copy progress. Even after explaining it from a technical and physical standpoint he thought I was ignorant not to accept, that mashing f5 made things go faster.
[/offtopic]
-
Well that all may be the best laugh I get all day, all these F5 shennanigans :)