Messages

526

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 15:00:57 »

The way I look at it is, color space makes the difference in terms of lighting - its obvious when comparing default Vray with Aces Vray - both have default settings just adjusting exposure value (no tone mapping).

We can then see Fstorm renders without tone mapping, and the light behaves differently to exposure than say default corona/vray. Tone mapping is the last piece of the puzzle here - important yes but not as important as getting a 'photo real' result - might as well use a composite software if you arent happy with the tone mapping controls (not saying it shouldnt be improved but just saying its not going to make a world of difference which you use once you have the correct rendered result).

As others have noted about small details, bumps, materials etc these all help with the bigger picture. My 2c

527

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 14:33:30 »

Test #2 with Fstorm.

For this section I kept tonemapping OFF, just to see the results of purely increasing the exposure (keep your eye on the exposure setting).








Now we reached the point of blow out. This is where it gets interesting. I turn tonemapping on (defaults)



Now decreasing the burn below 0 (which I expected not good results, but its actually ok). Not sure what to make of it to be honest.

528

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 13:52:19 »

Seems like there could be a better way. Using the tag inside the VrayHDRI for sRGB or Linear. Anyway Ill stop derailing this thread with minor topics.

529

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 13:44:52 »

Glad it helped. I'm testing Vray 5 beta and this will be easier!

This checkbox "auto RGB primaries etc..."

This does the utility rgb - acescg conversion for vraybitmaps without needing the OCIO node?

530

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 13:24:20 »

Great tip thanks - its not true what they say about you Fluss ;) (jk), fixes the blue color cast.

531

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 13:18:11 »

For the sun and sky you do not need OCIO nodes, you need to change the Vray internal colorspace and it's only accessible by script.

Execute this in the maxscript listener :

Code: [Select]

renderers.current.options_rgbColorSpace = 2

Thanks! Ill give it a shot

532

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 13:12:46 »

Yes you are correct Fluss. Textures are converted to aces cg space before rendering.

And the sun and sky (internal Vray colorspace)?

Using Raw to AcesCG (but it doesnt make any difference in this example)

533

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 12:41:50 »

\canon-lut-201911\3dlut\65grid-3dlut\full-to-full-range\BT709_CanonLog2-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF_Ver.2.0.cube

It doesnt give me the same result in Corona as Vray however.

edit (sorry I missed part of your question):
I chose it because there is only 3 to choose from as I need a log to rec709 df65 to match the setup of the corona scene. (6500kelvin).
- BT709_CanonLog2-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF_Ver.2.0.cube
- BT709_CanonLog3-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF_Ver.2.0.cube
- BT709_CanonLog-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF_Ver.2.0.cube

The first one didnt have a vignette, so used that to keep things as clear as possible without adding additional parameters. Its how I work normally with the VFB, the more you play with the tone mapping controls (highlight burn, contrast etc) the more you complicate things when trying to compare results.

534

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 12:15:32 »

Yes you are correct Fluss. Textures are converted to aces cg space before rendering.

535

[Max] General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp

« on: 2020-05-05, 12:02:19 »

lol funny little trick you did there @lolec, and thanks for posting the scene it is an interesting challenge. I gave it a try in Vray keeping everything the same, textures, lighting, ev etc only swapped the camera for a physical but settings are same. Settings were as follows, default Vray, Vray + LUT Canon 300C, Vray/Aces. I think the LUT is actually pretty close to the Aces result but less range in the top end.
I think for Vray using the exposure control gives you a better result at EV 0 but for now we can ignore that.

Vray





Vray + LUT Canon 300C




Vray/Aces








LUT here:
https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_log_luts_now_available.do
BT709_CanonLog2-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF_Ver.2.0.cube

536

[Max] I need help! / Re: Substance in 3ds Max (2.3.2) - Substance to Corona Converter

« on: 2020-05-04, 23:25:31 »

This material has some metalicity...

As an off topic thing... now I think about this, this is an odd material behaviour. Usually something is metal or its not (with slight variation in regards to decay/rust etc) but if its used as a sheen then I would be concerned about the quality of materials being offered on the Souce website. I know megascans have a good measure of quality with the technical aspect they approach their material process. Anyway, just rambling, keep us posted with your progress @cjwidd.

537

[Max] I need help! / Re: Substance in 3ds Max (2.3.2) - Substance to Corona Converter

« on: 2020-05-04, 23:13:39 »

Thats fair enough.

Here is a comparison between iray, corona, vray with both metal/dialectric areas with masks. They should be in parity (98% I should say, not 100%, they are different engines after all but the material is at quesiton here, the rest of the setup is identical, hdri, rotation, EV, camera, import settings etc).

538

[Max] I need help! / Re: Substance in 3ds Max (2.3.2) - Substance to Corona Converter

« on: 2020-05-04, 23:01:14 »

Well, obviously the one that is in Corona's VFB, is rendered by Corona, the other one is rendered by Iray. I turned off tonemapping in Painter, but maybe Iray is applying some beautification on its own, so little bit of tuning might be required to get good match.

it should look 100% the same as iray by default.

539

[Max] I need help! / Re: Substance in 3ds Max (2.3.2) - Substance to Corona Converter

« on: 2020-05-04, 22:52:52 »

It is, which is why I suggest first outputting those maps and testing the maps. If it works you know you have a problem with the plugin settings.

If you do, I would suggest changing the sbs file to output to Vray (GGX) Instead of Corona. Plug that node you have directly into a Base Material Converter, set the output to Vray(GGX) and then try using that as your sbar file. Thats how I would approach it.

edit:
like this:

left node, your material, right node converter to vray ggx, save this and import this into your 3dsmax scene as your sbar plugin. this should fix the errors in the transfer within that node. If it doesnt, then theres something else at play.

540

[Max] I need help! / Re: Substance in 3ds Max (2.3.2) - Substance to Corona Converter

« on: 2020-05-04, 22:40:08 »

Sure thing. You can see the link here:

https://www.jamesvella.net/blog/2019/9/2/substance-designer-to-vraycorona

I also had issues with the plugin. In fact I also have issues with the Converter within Substance to Corona Output texture maps. I found the Vray (GGX) works more in parity. Something happens with the Glossiness map (I havent investigated exactly what yet but I can show you the output below).

Corona Preset (Inverse Gamma doesnt fix this btw):


Corona 1.6 Preset (Which matches the Vray GGX):