Question: Why do Post-process in 3ds Max?

[Njen]

Just to throw in my perspective here, as someone who has worked in the CG industry for over 20 years that I'd rather a renderer focus on rendering and all post happen in software designed specifically for post. In my humble opinion, any renderer that tries to do post effects will not be able to provide the quality or level of control as other software that has been explicitly designed to do those tasks well. Granted, other people are seeking an 'all-in-one" solution, but features like post effects in a renderer is almost useless on mid to large studios that already have tried and true methods to get better results.

From what I've read there has been someone hired to specifically work on the post effects, but I'd have rather seen those resources go into development of more renderer orientated features like skin, fur, volumes, etc. No post effect development time is more important that a decent skin shader, for example.

But again, I realise that different people have different needs.

[Njen]

To put my comment into a more practical perspective (which also gives me a chance to shamelessly self promote my current project), I'm currently making an 8 minute steampunk themed, action based, animated short film all rendered in Corona (www.cyan-eyed.com), and I have zero interest in post effects. As even on this, being my own personal project, I want the greatest level of control in comp, and the last thing I would want to deal with is element merging or colour correction on images that have glare and bloom already rendered in them. I don't see myself using any of the post effects at all.

[Juraj]

Looks really damn good :- )

I don't think they hired anyone yet. And this complaining of where "resources" go is both bit unfair and groundless too, it's not a zero sum game, or mercantilistic utopia. In same way, 95+perc. of users are 3dsMax, should we start complaining about wasted development time on our Cinema4D bros :- ) ? Maybe without Cinema4D, we would have both skin shader and post effects :- D Just kidding, it doesn't work that way.

Once again, the discussion is absolutistic in arguments. No one is asking for integration of Photoshop or AfterEffects (although AfterEffects integrated Cinema, and Nuke has integrated Vray, people obviously DO want this by large). Glare, bloom, natural tonemapping, are all part of cameras, simple curve adjustments are also not resource hogs.

C'mon, how long does it take to integrate good contrast and curve adjustment :- ) ? Yet, we don't have it for two years and now someone will complain it's wasted effort better put into skin shader ? There hasn't even been that effort done yet.
At same time, they do work on pretty much all the features people wish for, the team is quite bigger than the single Ondra it was when I joined.

Large majority of Corona users would benefit from these features. The amount of people who do 50+ images per month and want instant feedback and consistent workflow on them far outweigh those who won't look at it. And even those don't loose anything at all with such features, they can simply ignore them, nothing changes for them.
Corona started with philosophy of simple photorealistic simulator. If anything, it caters currently much more towards this crowd than competitors who are fully featured. I also would love skin shader (I am actually using humans in current project), but the amount of people who will ever use it, compared to those who will use glare and curves, is unmatched. But that is no argument to ignore either.

[Njen]

I get where you are coming from, believe me.

But to look at this another way: I can rattle off in 10 seconds a number of different software solutions to add lens effects to an image, but I can't see a single physical skin shader that can be used with Corona.

What I'm trying to say is that I think resources should be diverted to areas that are unique to Corona first, then once all of the holes have been filled, go ahead and implement features that are many other software packages already do. Do we really need yet another method to add bloom to an image right now, or can we get support for far more necessary features that we currently do not have support for like skin, dispersion, reflection/refraction includes/excludes.

[Edit:] Oh, and thanks for the kind words about Cyan Eyed ;)

[Juraj]

I can equally answer that all those features exist in renderers like Arnold and Redshift :- )  Corona didn't base their marketing on includes/excludes, but capacity to make good 'looking' images. (not good sampled images ).

Look at the feature request thread. See where skin shader lies ( I write this knowing I will receive wrath of those who want this feature, and again, I want this feature too.... but what else to reply to "give my feature first"  type of argument ? )
Matter is, if Corona isn't serving your interest right now (and it's not really serving the VFX crowd much at all yet), why even choose is over Arnold/Redshift ? Why do you think you should get priority over 90perc. of userbase ?

And this is still just to answer your crazy argument these features somehow compete. Do you really think they have developer who can write glare and support for alSurface shader at some time ? But only has time for one ? Or they have budget for one developer only while there are 50 available candidates ?

[Ondra]

Do you really think they have developer who can write glare and support for alSurface shader at some time ? But only has time for one ?

yes

also to keep the flame going: if it wasnt for the crack, we would also have money to hire more people to do both at the same time ;)

[Juraj]

Browsing ChaosGroup recently, it seems the only person there who can port alSurface is Vlado himself, who's doing it overnights as prototype. The character artists there are just as desperate for good SS as elsewhere :- ).

I doubt something like glare needs that kind of expertise.

Regarding crack, the Denuvo hypetrain got recently revealed pricemark... it's surprisingly cheap.

[Njen]

I know of the feature request poll you have mentioned, and yes one has to recognise the will of the current users in regards to what users what. Though one also has to consider the prospective future users looking to buy a great new renderer but have not yet done so because of a lack of certain features.

The following statement is not based on facts, just anecdotal evidence from asking various colleagues in the industry: few would not want to buy a license because of a lack of lens effects such as glare, but I believe more people would not want to buy a license because of a lack of a good skin shader.

If I was trying to convince my employer at my day job to switch to Corona (I work for a VFX studio), they would see a lack or a good skin shader to be a deal breaker, while a lack of lens effects is barely a blip on the radar.

I feel that I need to add that I think Corona is fantastic, and the giddy feeling I get from using it is similar to how I felt when I first started using Brazil more than 10 years ago. I just feel that Corona has the potential to have a wider adoption at studios if some development time was refocused on other features first.

[Ondra]

If I was trying to convince my employer at my day job to switch to Corona (I work for a VFX studio), they would see a lack or a good skin shader to be a deal breaker, while a lack of lens effects is barely a blip on the radar.

Well, there is one crucial factor you are missing - you already WANT to use Corona. Now you are requesting features so that you CAN use Corona. Lens flare is obviously not such feature, because it can easily be done in post. But most people in CG as general (outside of this forum) do not WANT to use Corona. And lens flare, although not essential, is a feature that will make them WANT use it.

[Njen]

A good point well taken. I'm sure you realise that I am looking at Corona from a high end VFX point of view, which is probably different to what the reality is no doubt.

Regardless, I hope that my small voice in this issue helps adjust the direction Corona will take in the future.

[Rhodesy]

Hoping the quick release of the C4D version will help to add to the Corona coffers for more devs.

[romullus]

also to keep the flame going: if it wasnt for the crack, we would also have money to hire more people to do both at the same time ;)

Oh dear, you should stop smoking crack - not only it drains money quicker than one can earn, but also it's bad for health :]

* runs for cover

[sebastian___]

lol, that was really funny

[Ludvik Koutny]

Actually, maybe that's what successful people have in common :)

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/279270

[Marcellus Ludovicus]

... But if I have 50 people walking and running, doing it by hand get's a lot more difficult and possibly annoying and repetitive, and suddenly it gets easier to setup an automatic generating system of "true" dust particles at each contact of feet with the ground. And if I spend a little more time and make sure the dust intensity is related with the force the character hits the ground, that means I can move the camera closer or in all kinds of angles, and it will still look realistic and good. Sure I have longer render times and some work time to setup the system, but next time I can reuse the system even for large groups of people, or even for giant spiders, horses and so on...

Cool, so you want it for the same reason I don't want it; to save time.  Makes sense.