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 - Basshunter

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
[Max] I need help! / Re: corona sky
« on: 2023-01-19, 22:02:22 »
Have you ever opened .raw file and applied "linear" profile? It's bit harder to do in Lightroom or ACR (requires switching to much older profile and only then zero-ing attributes), but super easy with Capture One which you use (just select "linear" profile). It would show you the natural color without any tonemapping or post-processing.

It should not be any different if you use similar time of day, angle of looking at sky (not angle of sun), altitude and lower the turbidity.

White Balance between Corona and Cameras is bit tricky, as 6500K gets interpreted very differently by camera makers and raw editors. You might need to tweak this in Corona somewhat to your liking.

Then we're getting in color gamut which can also influence the tint and saturation perception quite a lot. Corona uses internally some generic WideGamut color space, but Corona Framebuffer and 3dsMax itself are not in any way color managed, so getting correct and accurate colors out of it as expected in comparison to well color-managed photo pipeline (mostly AdobeRGB on both sensor capture and raw editor interpretation) is complicated.

Hey Juraj. I'm still trying to understand your answer but there's a couple of things I still don't get. So hopefully you can help me out.

1) Are you saying that if we could see that last photo (the regular one, not the HDR) using a linear profile, the sky would look pale blue as in the renders? Cause I'm not sure about that to be honest.

2) If that's the case though, is it correct to say that the reason for those deep blues on the photo is just the tonemapping?

3) If tonemapping is the reason, does it mean that Corona ACES ouput has way less saturation/contrast than the tonemapping used on this photo? I say that because I can see that you had to add more contrast in order to reproduce those deep blues in corona. I think that one would expect that after the ACES output, renders are very close to photos (the ones straight from the camera) in terms of contrast, saturation, blacks ect. But this seems to not be the case. I still wonder what combination of operator could give me that.

This is a topic that has intrigued me for a while now since my clients always send me reference photos (straight jpg from their cameras) that always have deeper blues than my tonnepamed renders and for some reason I'm not able to achieve the same sky without having to tweak the color, which is not physically accurate in my opinion.

2
What if you disable "Clear VFB between renders" in Render Setup > System? :)

Ohh, didn't know we had that option. That's great! Gonna try it. Thank you

3
Every time I try to re-render a portion of an image using the region render tool, the rest of the VFB goes black. This is really annoying and unpractical in my opinion since it makes impossible to fix ONLY some parts of the image without having to re-render everything again.

I remember this never happened in V-Ray.

4
General CG Discussion / Re: Vantage and Corona
« on: 2022-12-28, 03:07:49 »
@Maru

Looks like lot of people is requesting this feature. Must be important :)

5
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona Bump is so broken
« on: 2022-12-19, 15:34:45 »
To reiterate, a shader shouldn't look like a completely different finish (gloss or matt) depending on how close to it you are or what your filtering settings are.  This is what is happening in Corona, in the FStorm and Scanline examples, the finish looks the same regardless which is how it should be.  Gloss is gloss and matt is matt.

This. I could not agree more.

6
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona Bump is so broken
« on: 2022-12-12, 18:56:47 »
In fact, waiting for tens of reports before something can be called a problem or broken (you name it) is actually very unrealistic. Sometimes people can't just detect the source of a problem even when they feel something is wrong. Some of them don't even use this forum.

I have a wonderful designer on my charge and after checking that video, he mentioned that he had always felt something was wrong with the materials. He couldn't get consistent results after putting the assets in the scene. They just looked bland and too polished sometimes, even when he had just spent a lot of time tweaking them. But he didn't know exactly what the problem was. The same thing happened to me all this time too. We just couldn't tell what was wrong. We never imagined that Corona could be sacrificing so much accuracy and realism in order to make the engine faster.

 

7
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona Bump is so broken
« on: 2022-12-12, 16:07:37 »
Hi all, first of all, I would really appreciate changing the thread title. "So broken" is not really true.
Corona bump looks completely off once you move the camera away form the object and you say it's not broken?

On the other hand, we are not getting many reports like this, so it can't be that bad. ;)
Wow

If you have some examples where the current behavior fails, please send them over - we are always happy to investigate, offer some workarounds, and log specific cases for our devs to review.
Did you even see the video?

8
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona Bump is so broken
« on: 2022-12-12, 02:42:44 »
Yeah, I can see there's been couple of threads mentioning this problem in the past.



I Always knew something was wrong with my materials when looked from a distance but wasn't sure what is was until now. Man, you just get a completely different material when you zoom out! The only way to get a proper bump that still works in the distance is to set Blur to the lowest value possible. However, doing this would increase render time.

This is a big deal in my opinion! How is it that one of the best render engines for archviz can't just handle bump properly?!





9
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Corona Bump is so broken
« on: 2022-12-12, 01:29:16 »
Probably explains why my floors always look nice when I'm testing using 2d pan and zoom, nice matt look with visible grain, then when I zoom out to render, they look flat and shiny.  Then I end up tweaking the shader so it looks right at normal resolution.

So in effect, we get it looking realistic, then we have to break the shader and make it unrealistic, just to make it look realistic again.  Make it make sense .  Sigh.

Be a good time for the devs to jump in.  I'd hate to think all these speed increases we've been getting over the years are all at the sacrifice of something else.
I completely feel you.

Hard to believe the devs didn't know this was happening from the beginning. It's so disappointing.

10
[Max] General Discussion / Re: Is Corona Bump that broken?
« on: 2022-12-11, 16:29:26 »
Is this behaviour the same when your texture is plugged into a Corona Bump Converter?  Not infront of 3DS Max to test it
The result is worse. For some reason, even lowering the filtering of the noise node (as it is suggested in the video) gives you a bad result when using bump Converter node.

11
[Max] General Discussion / Corona Bump is so broken
« on: 2022-12-10, 21:10:35 »

12
This came out a few years ago, Has everything included in the plugin, it was not free, but was worth the purchase.
It's not for sale anymore

13
I was going to post the same question. Is there any definitive answer?

14
I have to convert tons of physical materials to Corona on a DAILY basis! Please guys, is this so difficult to implement?

15
+1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16