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 - lupaz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2021-11-30, 17:22:11 »
Someone shared a Vray LUT on this thread that has really helped me a lot - not the same as full ACES support, but helpful.

Isn't Corona's wide gamut rgb pretty much as wide as acescg?
Isn't the ability to tone map the image however you like better than one fixed curve?

what is the expectation here?

I understand those that suddenly found themselves being a part of pipeline requiring aces but everybody else?

My only expectation is that colors don't get so saturated on hotspots. I believe that was part of the conversation here on this thread. For example, when the sun hits wood you get a yellowish halo around the white area. Yes, you can lower the overall saturation, but you're affecting the entire image. Reinhardt or crunching the whites don't seem to work as if you were working with an HDR. I may be wrong and I'm far from an expert in the subject.

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2021-11-24, 15:51:35 »
Hello Corona Team.

I'm looking into buying a material manager but I thought first asking here if you guys think yours will be able to incorporate our own materials soon or it's not something you're currently working on.

Thank you.

Hi Tom,

I'd like to suggest a color picker for white balance like in photoshop's camera raw filter.

It's already there. The second icon in the color picker, next to the regular one.

Thanks Maru. Are you getting that color picker by clicking on color tint?
I think it would be more obvious if there's a color picker next to white balance, since you're changing the frame buffer UI. It would be more user friendly in my opinion. Just a thought.

Hi Tom,

I'd like to suggest a color picker for white balance like in photoshop's camera raw filter.

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: cjwidd render thread
« on: 2021-11-15, 14:32:03 »
Nice modeling

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2021-11-03, 22:54:39 »
Cryptomatte support please. I find your lack of Cryptomatte support disturbing. The most other features on the list can be filled in by plugins but I need Cryptomatte, having full blown pipeline with Vray for years using Cryptomatte and need it. Even Blender has it. Shame on you.

Is this a joke??

It's not a joke for me. Not having Crypto Mattes is so weird. It's just another of those industry standards that the devs seem to look past. Nothing says fun render engine, like wasting time setting up mattes for a million shots.

I was talking about the "disturbing" and the "shame on you" parts.

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2021-11-03, 15:31:09 »

It was rendered on a single 2080ti and only used 2.75gb of other words it could be rendered on a toaster:

I don't really get your argument about not seeing many huge scene examples...take a look at some of Mikael's other work if you need to be convinced further (despite me also using FStorm daily - I have no reason to lie). Here's another: I've chosen to invest in 3x3090's because I can, and it's profitable. It's not necessary. I was using a single 2080ti for quite a while which was faster in equivalent render time to my 3970x in complex interior scenes using Corona. You would need to invest a hell of a lot more than what I paid for 3x3090's to match the speed using Corona, and then have to deal with distributed rendering.

I guess you're right. I didn't know that one was all 3D.
If you don't mind me asking, what and why do you use Corona for?

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2021-11-02, 17:45:17 »
What would you classify as a huge exterior scene? The groups banner photo seems pretty sizeable:

Yes, that definitely classifies as a huge exterior scene. I wonder what kind of card they used, because my impression is that you'd need a much larger investment to create  a scene like that in Fstorm than with Corona.

Other than this one image that you showed, I haven't seen anything done in Fstorm with that scale. While with Corona there's tons of examples.
If you know more examples of larger scenes, I'd be interested in seeing them.

In other words, yes, GPU rendering is great if you're willing to spend big bucks for a system.
Otherwise Corona is more wallet friendly in terms of system requirements IMO

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2021-11-02, 14:33:09 »
I don't agree that without GPU rendering there is no future. Especially since CPU market is starting to be super sompetitive again which means better products for consumers. Intel is finally awakening with Alder Lake and AMD is showing no signs of stopping either. Also, Apple M1 is pushing both of these to get better/competitive (especially Intel).

But most importantly, as explained by Corona team, CPU is capable of producing more beautiful/realistic results than GPU at cost of speed. I choose quality over speed and in my opinion Corona render is pretty fast given the results it is producing.

As for adding support for other software, I would rather have them focus on existing two and continue rapid increase in quality of Corona Render

I don't agree with this at all, speaking as someone that's used Corona for years, and FStorm for several months (commercially). Take a quick browse on the FStorm Facebook group for an idea of render time vs quality. Unfortunately Corona isn't coming close any more.

Secondly, the cost to performance (coupled with convenience factor) is definitely skewed in GPU rendering's favour, given that we now have 24GB GPU's (roughly equivalent to 128gb-256gb of system ram imo due to how efficient ram usage is with FStorm + the option of memory compression). What's more convenient/cheap; building out multiple 3990x machines and dealing with DR annoyances vs. simple dropping in as many 3090's as you need in any machine with lots of PCIE lanes. Another negative of CPU rendering, having to build an entirely new system every time a new socket/platform gets released, or being potentially rugged in the future by workstation only platforms i.e. Threadripper pro as your only upgrade path.

I don't want to sound like an FStorm fanboy, but I'll go with whatever software gives me the most benefit. It's a shame to see the Corona devs dig their heels in on the CPU/GPU debate when there IS a clear current and future benefit to GPU/Hybrid rendering.

I agree with that quality in rendering has nothing to do with GPU vs CPU, but there are cons of GPU as well. If you look at the media library on FB for Fstorm, there aren't huge exterior scenes. Memory in GPU rendering must still be a big bottle neck.
Also video cards do have their problems too. Many times I read in the Facebook page of Fstorm someone with issues with GPU and I feel relieved that I don't have to deal with all that.

Gallery / Re: Volumetric Wisps
« on: 2021-11-01, 15:16:50 »
Looks great. Thanks!

Off-Topic / Re: why aren't renderers realistic?
« on: 2021-10-31, 17:57:25 »
Look at the renderings of this guy.
If he crops certain areas, they look like photos. There's always something in the rendering that tells it's not a photo. But that's a matter of adding more detail IMO.

Off-Topic / Re: why aren't renderers realistic?
« on: 2021-10-31, 17:29:15 »
even if it was just a white clean room?

Because even a white clean room has billions of imperfections.
With unbiased render engines, if you add all that detail, you can fool anyone.

[Max] Daily Builds / Re: CoronaDecals playground!
« on: 2021-10-18, 17:25:04 »
if I understand it right as "the displacement from decal should be added on top of the original displacement, not replace it", that is very easy to do, and can be added as a mode

Wow! This would be a great improvement over the layered material, which AFAIK cannot do that.

Very exciting to see the examples Romulus!


Often times I need to have objects as matte and would like to see the background image without using a map in Enviro/Backplate.

It would be great if shadow catcher had the option of making what has the material applied completely see through. Pretty much as if you had the inverse selection in "render selected" mode, except that shadows and reflections can be seen (optional).

In other words, as if the rendering is multiplied by the alpha channel on the fly.

I believe this is how Vray works when you make objects matte, if I remember correctly.


Thanks Romullus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46