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 - pokoy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 113
Yes, I was looking for such an option recently and the Select Map/Mat would really be a good candidate for this. Also for CoronaMultimap.

[Max] I need help! / Re: Weird adaptivity issues
« on: 2022-11-22, 20:24:42 »
This doesn't necessarily have to be caused by adaptivity, it could be the new solver (which was hidden from the UI and moved to 'devel' section tab in v8 I think). You could try disabling it and see if it helps. I'm seeing this from time to time but eventually it clears up, that harsh border is only visible in the first few passes for me.

There's no alpha for bloom and glare. Only alpha-less and add/screen blending in PS or elsewhere. The fact that bloom and glare is added on top is the only reason you are able to obtain a separate layer/file of it. It's just the way it is in all apps, any bloom/shine/glare is added on top in addition blending mode.

Even if there was you'd have to un-multiply the image based on alpha which mostly only compositing apps offer (certainly not Powerpoint, even PS can't do it).

thanks for the answer. so basically it is not possible, if I want to overlay a render with bloom&glare onto a background image, and retain the flexibility of moving that render over the background image? No need to adjust the exposure. In the VFB I can do that already.
Bloom & glare should be applied in additive mode - for this you don't need alpha as black will not be visible and only brighter colors will be blended. As Tom said, ideally in 'linear add' mode (and linear workflow) but if you just want to add it in PS, 'screen' mode will work good enough and you can still add a tone control adjustment layer to the bloom & glare layer for further modifications (boost, gamma etc).

[Max] I need help! / Re: Volumetric scaterring
« on: 2022-10-19, 12:08:55 »
As Romullus said, this might be a normal problem, but could it be that the object has overlapping faces? Maybe the spline it was extruded from has multiple splines all in the same place?

Is the slicer set to create caps, and to use the material from the object being sliced (ie not to override it)? Failing that you can do it the old way with realtime Boolean objects :)
Am I missing something or are you both talking about different things - Volume Grid vs Geometry using a VolumeMtl.
If I'm not mistaken, the question was how to use a camera within a Volume Grid (vdb) object - I haven't looked into it, but since Volume Grid objects have no material, how would you define what material the Slicer has to work on?

@Jens - if it's supposed to work this was, maybe try inverting normals on the sphere object, who knows maybe that's what's needed.

Gallery / Re: Mosscore: Petit Ermitage
« on: 2022-10-10, 17:05:13 »
Mindblowing detail and great mood, really loving it. I couldn't imagine having that level of patience so congrats on that, too :D

Testing CR9 RC 2 with max 2021 currently, and it seems that using 'Show with original postprocessing' in the VFB history switches tone mapping off completely.. or even darkens output, not sure, but it's definitely not using the tone mapping nodes used when image was saved to history.
This is an older v7 scene and tone mapping was not reset, maybe that's the problem. But in any case, it should work with whatever the tone mapping config was when the image was saved to history.

IMO caustics adaptivity should be off by default because it causes issues in so many scenes, until it's improved/fixed. It's something we have had to add to a "dummy list" to remember to do in every scene involving caustics, along with amending the initial lookup radius and other bits.
What exactly do you change and do you have numbers that always work better than the defaults? I've changed the max photons/iteration on some files and sometimes it helped, sometimes it made it all worse. Changing initial lookup radius always resulted in a too different look in general and my conclusion is that caustics are incredibly finicky and way to unpredictable to use in production, along with quite a performance penalty I'm not willing to pay.

Agree with the request - for me, decals would prove much more useful if support for other mapping/projection modes would be added.
My idea would be that UV coords could be defined in a UV modifier or Unwrap mod on the mapped object and the Decal would get a 'use existing mapping channel' option along with a map channel ID (similar to how the legacy Displacement modifier works where you can optionally use an already existing mapping channel).
Let's see if it's doable.

Well that could be the reason. Didn't think about that... thanks Juraj for chiming in.

I answered your post yesterday without trying the values in Max and you're right, they're producing confusing results...

From my knowledge, using the FOV should give you a match as this is the deciding factor of what area the lens actually sees, with whatever values you use for focal length and sensor size. With a different sensor size your DOF result will not be able to match, though. But, as this is a wide lens, DOF will be deep throughout almost all distances, blurriness will be negligible.

This may be a different lens design... then again they are stating that its 26mm are 35mm equivalent. I'm confused, too.

A note on the Perspective Match tool - watch out for its side effects: it sometimes (always?) produces non-uniformly scaled cameras to match the source, this might be a problem in rendering and other post prod matching tools you might want to use (such as exporting camera to AE etc).

When you use the Perspective Match tool, what do you get for focal length / fov on the camera the tool creates?

This seems to be a 6.4 x 4.8 mms sensor, so it's 6.4 mms for film width. When you use 26mm as focal width it should produce the given fov.
However, if you want to be on the safe side use 78.8 degs for fov instead of focal width since this is what the lens effectively sees.

As for matching... not sure but I guess matching apps should be able to use exif data correctly nowadays and have a lens database to correct for any distortion. In any case, don't use Photoshop's correction, it crops images (changing the effective fov) and produces wrong results if the lens is not included in their database. I would go without any lens correction and only try if the match is obviously wrong.

Ok, thank you.

2022 here.
Corona v8? Worse than v7? And, do you see this in Max 2021, if you have any chance to test...?

I'm asking because I might move from to 2021 to 2022 and I'm eager to learn about any potential problems rather sooner than too late.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 113