Messages

1

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Multiply UVW-randomised tile by its scale

« on: 2022-12-16, 06:12:38 »

Thanks, it's logged. As usual, when/if it will be implemented depends on many things including how useful it is and how hard it is to do.

(Internal ID=1022211097)

Ok so I couldn't wait and ended up making the function myself in OSL by modifying the RandomTilingBitmap.osl shader. I had to fix the edge fuzz algorithm, which uses stochastic, binary noise to blend between tiles, and turns displacement maps into an absolute mess. Then I added functions to multiply a tile's value by its scale, plus adjust the the ratio of small to large tiles. It can be used on any other map and has a special scaling function for normal maps.

I've attached an image showing the difference between the old version, with the edge fuzz fixed, and with the scaling feature added.

I think the results look pretty cool and were straightforward to implement. Hopefully this might serve as inspiration to add it!
I'd be happy to share the code if the team wanted a reference.

2

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Multiply UVW-randomised tile by its scale

« on: 2022-12-14, 17:50:54 »

Legend, cheers Maru :)

3

[Max] Feature Requests / Re: Multiply UVW-randomised tile by its scale

« on: 2022-12-13, 17:23:40 »

So a large tile would produce proportionally tall displacement, right?

Do you think it would have some other usage than displacement?

Pretty much, yep! I imagine the amplitude = wavelength harmonic relationship could also work well for normal maps for the same reason.

Plus, you might want the inverse amplitude = frequency relationship where for example, a water normal might have lower amplitudes for larger tiles.

This could also go for regular textures too. Perhaps you'd want a cavity map or tint to be stronger based on tile scale. I suppose it just creates room for creative adjustment in general.

4

[Max] Feature Requests / Multiply UVW-randomised tile by its scale

« on: 2022-12-12, 19:36:11 »

This is a pretty simple one that I think could go a long way.

Essentially, the UVW Randomiser would have an option to multiply the output values of a given tile by its scale.
This would mean that displacement maps keep a Z level proportionate to their XY scale.

Using widely-varying scale values, this would allow a single displacement map to produce natural variation across the surface of an object.

Would love to see this implemented!

5

Gallery / Re: 3ds Max + Corona - Rock Scene

« on: 2015-03-26, 16:48:54 »

I also added a bit of fog using the depth pass

So you should also try Corona's global volume material! :D
https://coronarenderer.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/5000534910

I used that for this too :D But it didn't add a fog effect, it just seemed to suppress the lighting, darkened down the image and softened the light. I liked that effect but I also wanted a more explicit fog effect.

6

Gallery / Re: 3ds Max + Corona - Rock Scene

« on: 2015-03-26, 16:10:28 »

Hi! The blur was added in After Effects with the Frischluft Depth of Field plugin. It's fantastic, far better than After Effects' default Camera Lens Blur effect.

You should definitely try Corona's DOF!

I have indeed! I was experimenting a bit though and I liked the freedom of adding it in post. The Frischluft plugin also gives finer controls over the look.

I also added a bit of fog using the depth pass, and I wasn't sure that the effect would interact as expected with blur directly rendered with Corona. For absolute realism though, I'll definitely go for Corona's DOF.

7

Gallery / Re: 3ds Max + Corona - Rock Scene

« on: 2015-03-26, 15:59:18 »

Looking good, but why so cold tones?

I like that slightly ominous vibe, it's a little less one-sided than if it were a bright day. From a compositional perspective, the cool tint accentuates the orange glow from inside, I like the flare it gives.

8

Gallery / Re: 3ds Max + Corona - Rock Scene

« on: 2015-03-26, 15:47:59 »

Thanks for the feedback guys! I'm glad people like it :)

Is the DOF made in post or straight from Corona? Looking at the thumbnail I thought it's a spaceship. :)

Hi! The blur was added in After Effects with the Frischluft Depth of Field plugin. It's fantastic, far better than After Effects' default Camera Lens Blur effect.

9

Gallery / 3ds Max + Corona - Rock Scene

« on: 2015-03-26, 09:58:32 »

This is more of a test, and I'm by no means a professional, but I'm loving Corona. So enjoy the scene! It was about 3 hours of work.

10

Gallery / Dispersed Diamond Caustics Test

« on: 2014-04-18, 19:42:36 »

I tried a method posted by another user here where to achieve a dispersed refraction/caustics effect, you look up the refractive index of red, green and blue for a material. In this case I just estimated with 2.40 for red, 2.42 for green and 2.44 for blue for diamond, and then I blended the layers with the 'add' mode and blurred each layer a little for firefly suppressing, because I used a relatively low pass count of 150 (because hey, it's a test). The result looks super cool, so I thought I'd share!

11

Gallery / Re: Teapot caustics animation.

« on: 2014-04-18, 03:23:14 »

Around 3 minutes each.

12

Gallery / Re: Teapot caustics animation.

« on: 2014-04-17, 15:17:59 »

Yeah it'd be lovely to have the option of a caustics pass to use as an overlay for progressive renders, it's very difficult to add any kind of noise reduction without making the whole image muddy.

13

Gallery / Re: Friday night drinks with Corona

« on: 2014-04-17, 07:20:54 »

Cool! I'll keep an eye out :)

14

Gallery / Teapot caustics animation.

« on: 2014-04-17, 07:02:42 »

I just figured out how Corona can be used to render caustics with BDPT, so I animated a light rotating around a teapot primitive to see how it looks.
It turns out that it looks pretty cool, so I'm posting it here.

EDIT: Can't figure out how to get YouTube embedding to work, here's a direct link.

15

Gallery / Re: Friday night drinks with Corona

« on: 2014-04-17, 06:58:12 »

Haha, excellent. Corona's my favourite beer ;) Texture resolution on that table seems a little low though. I imagine that's because you'd be rendering from a wider perspective normally though?