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 - sebastian___

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2020-09-29, 01:32:42 »
About a year ago I did an animation test with Corona. Not sure what version it was but probably already had the adaptive engine.

It had a very pleasant... I don't know what, lighting ? colors ? It was pleasant everything. Even though it was a simple plane, a little bit of corona sky behind and a small animated object. Fixed camera. And I was a little troubled to see that the speed of rendering of just the empty plane ground and the sky was not much different if I added the object in or not. I felt like the speed of the empty scene should have been much much faster.
  It felt stupid for me to wait for the renderer to render 1000 frames which were all identical between them save for the little bit of moving render noise or grain and 25% of the image occupied by the animated object.
  So I managed to animate a small render region just for the animated object and of course that went way faster.

Then I saw here on forum other people with the same problem, I even tried replying that they can also use this method - animating a small render region to follow the moving object, but they were not interested, they were just upset that Corona takes that much time to render a static simple scene or a large plane.

I also tested a few other renderers, I don't remember which ones, maybe even IRay ? Not sure, but some renderers, like one would expect, had a much greater speed increase if you had the animated object in the scene, or not. Also a great speed increase for the portions of the scene without details, if it used bucket rendering you could see the increase in speed.

2
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2020-09-28, 23:34:24 »
In theory that sounds ok, but maybe the devs know something we don't know, maybe they can indeed optimize and get more speed still from their code. The "speed improvements" was put on the poll by the devs right ?

And maybe the speed improvements can be not some simple brute numbers or percentage increase by doing some super magic tricks and just increasing all renders by 30% . That doesn't sound plausible indeed.

But instead they can increase the speed by making the render engine even more "smart" . For example the engine should somehow know if most of the image is just blank, or a white wall without much happening in terms of shading, details or reflection and that part should render super fast. Other render engines seem to have an edge in this regard and render much faster if not much is happening on the screen, like maybe for compositing reasons most of the screen is empty.
 Or maybe you do have a minimalist scene with lots of huge walls without details. Corona seems to render these pretty slow.

I think more and more people want to use Corona for animation too, not just for stills. And I think this would help that.

(and I voted for  lightmix layers for textures and materials)

3
[Max] Feature Requests / Re: The most wanted feature?
« on: 2020-09-25, 17:39:49 »
It baffles me that we keep voting up speed improvements every single time instead of new features that make our jobs easier or more efficient. If you have a decent workstation its impressively fast already!

Ummm ..speak for yourself :)  Aannd... what is this "impressively fast" thing that you speak of ? I don't know what it means but it has a very nice ring to it.

4
You forgot to add the so called superior or pleasant typical Corona lighting or rendering. I would have voted that.
And also the ease of use.

5
[Max] I need help! / Re: Refraction doubles render time
« on: 2020-09-01, 09:37:08 »
Yep, for multiple angles and camera positions a realistic solution is the best. I didn't realize it you need this for lots of camera positions even though you said you use a lot of renders with sea water.

There's also Dreamscape from Sitnisati which is a pretty good looking ocean solution (as long as you don't use tall waves) complete with waves and surface shader and I guess pretty fast or optimized, but probably doesn't work with Corona.

But as far as I remember it looked pretty photorealistic rendered just with scanline render, so you could also render separately and composite after.
But the waves and wake interaction is much worse compared to your solution from your images. So it's good only as a "background" ocean.
And compositing the foam and wakes with the dreamscape ocean would be a lot of work I guess.

6
[Max] I need help! / Re: Refraction doubles render time
« on: 2020-08-31, 20:00:17 »
The difference between the two pictures are quite subtle. Can't you fake it somehow with some fog color or translucency or something ?

7
Hardware / Re: Buying a Monitor
« on: 2020-08-17, 15:47:32 »
Maybe I'm getting a bit off-topic but I think these are interesting times where you can have a 10 year old computer who will perform absolutely adequate for a lot of tasks.
I remember this not to be the case many years ago, when every 2 years or every year there was a dramatic improvement and you could absolutely not play the top of the line game (with effects set on high) on a 5 year old computer.

I can open countless of tabs in Chrome, I can play 4k videos in youtube without a problem, and most importantly I can have pretty fast updates on interactive renderings as long as I have simple scenes or just a complex object like a huge tree.
 Using Corona for a high resolution render and waiting until the noise would be very low would probably take a pretty long time (I'm not sure as I never did a final render), but just playing and adjusting materials or moving the viewport, the IR is pretty fast.
 Octane or Redshift demo does not update quite that fast like Corona but final renders are much faster, probably from the oversized GPU (compared to CPU).

Davinci Resolve works in realtime and Premiere Pro plays 4.5k Red Raw footage in realtime with GPU acceleration. Plus GPU effects like color correction and gaussian blur and so on. What more would you need ? :)

And I'm sure lots of games would play very well because of that GPU and 24GB ram, even though bottlenecked.

CPU heavy things like cloth simulation and tyFlow and so on are taking a big hit I imagine, compared to new CPU's.

I still have sitting in a box the Xeon X5670 Six Core, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut paste and a huge Noctua cooler. I will mount them as soon as my scenes would get complex.

Can you guess if I would to mount a second RTX 2080 - would I get a somewhat double render speed for a GPU renderer ? Or would my computer explode and desintegrate from the abomination of pairing 2 new cards with such old components ?

8

I was wondering if this was the best way for simple flythroughs? Even just flat 8bit images at 25 fps mount up to a considerable size so im not sure how people stretch to 16 or 32bit multilayered files. Must be a nightmare?

Don't forget to activate compression when you are saving to sequence files.

 - png - probably one of the smallest file sizes and has compression on by default, but slower to play, but that speed loss might be negligible depending on the computer, image content and resolution

 - tiff has multiple types of compression. Packbits should be faster while LZW and ZIP should have a smaller file size but slower to play. Tiff has even a jpeg compression, but that is probably lossy while the previous mentioned ones are without any loss in quality.

 - for 8 bit - targa or tga can also be an option, in my tests its RLE compression is the fastest to decode/play because it's not a zip like compression and takes better advantage of repeating colors in the image. And if you are compositing and save only a small smoke element in a big image and have the rest of the image black, file size can be super small like 100 KB for a full hd res.

 - exr - can also have the RLE compression, which I'm guessing it's fast like in tga, and also has zip which I guess it's slower but makes smaller file sizes.

10
Hardware / Re: Buying a Monitor
« on: 2020-08-14, 02:26:00 »
I am using 3x 4K displays for work, doesn't really stress my GPU to any perceivable performance drawback.

Maybe there's a non linear GPU usage or logarithmic or something as you move on to higher resolutions, at least for the 2d side as I imagine that's the one more involved when driving monitors.
But still with my weird setup I should watch out for any extra percent of GPU/CPU usage. I have a super old i7 930, 24GB ram, Intel X58 mainboard with PCIe 2.0, and a RTX 2080 - that's what makes it weird I guess. A somewhat new GPU on a 10 year or older mainboard and CPU.

 A year ago I bought a higher core Xeon based on advice on this forum and other articles, should be compatible with my mainboard,  but I have not mounted yet because I only worked on elements and not on whole scenes, and you just don't need power for single trees, single rock, single car and so on. But I will as I will move to jungles.

I wonder who else from the whole internet has a setup like me ? :)  BTW, new games with high graphics like Forza Horizon 4 work with all the effects on max, decent resolution (for me), and 70 fps.

11
Hardware / Re: 2990wx Shutting down
« on: 2020-08-14, 02:11:15 »
Maybe you already did this, but what if you would take the desktop side door off, to make sure your computer is as cool as possible, even though in your last screen - your temp are not high at all. And then render something for a while.
 Maybe there's some weird obscure component on the motherboard or something which is not cooled enough.
 And maybe just to make sure, place there a room fan - maybe one with a leg if you have that - and point it to blow in the computer. This should ensure best temps for every component in there.

12
Hardware / Re: Buying a Monitor
« on: 2020-08-12, 13:21:43 »
I got somewhat lost here :- )

Maybe I did not phrase everything quite right.
Last time when I bought a kindle I chose the hiPPI version instead of the lower res one. But in that case it came with no drawbacks.
Same with phones - they just need to render a bunch of text and photos so they can afford to have high resolutions and it looks good. But I believe with many intensive 3d games, phones will use much lower resolutions and upscale to fit the screen.

And some years ago when I checked my eyesight it was good, no need for glasses :) so yeah I can see the difference and having a screen like a high quality magazine is nice, but years ago (and today) everyone struggled with not enough power for their graphics, and no one complained about their crysis game or 3ds max not looking like a super high dpi magazine.
People saying "once you go retina screen" you can't go back, but I guess I'm lucky in that regard because I see the difference but I have no discomfort working on "normal" resolutions screens.

I think people should switch to hiDPI and super high refresh rates when most of the things in graphics will become real-time.
I used to work in music production and I witnessed that happening. Everything switched to real-time at some point and it was great.

I guess the same thing will happen in graphics. With 2d graphics work it already kind of happened. So now we just need to wait for the 3d part :)

13
Hardware / Re: Buying a Monitor
« on: 2020-08-07, 05:48:44 »

Ask any programmer what they think of HiDPI, they love it. I know guys running code on multiple of the 8K Dell UP3218K. It's different, much more natural experience, the clarity is unreal, the ease of reading text and vector graphics is comparable to high-end print magazine almost.

................

 much higher peak brightness,

I don't get some of the attraction for some of these features.
I mean we had high quality print magazines and posters for many many years and I never thought - if only my monitor would have details or text like this. Also never heard anyone before the advent of "retina" screens wishing their text look like high quality print. I guess it would make sense for people sitting very close to their monitors, but what about those who sit at a sizable distance ?
  I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying it should be low priority. From my part bring on the infinite resolution and huge refresh rate as long as it doesn't take from other more important things.

  I still cringe when I see people playing games with all the effects stopped and geometry set to low poly but with super high resolution, so you have simple objects, bad lighting with low poly, but super sharp lines. I mean, people don't wish for film like video games anymore ? Since when are films super sharp but low poly ? If anything films have infinite polygons (because it's reality) , tons of effects and motion blur, glow, DOF, bloom, but not super sharp.
The most expensive cameras in the world - the Arri cameras did not even had 4k cameras until recently.

And about higher brightness I thank god my monitor has a software slider on my desktop so I can constantly move the brightness up and down from minimum to maximum. I think it's a good idea when you see white pages for hours, or when watching the monitor close to the sleeping time - I have to remember to bring the brightness down, or else I heard it interferes with the sleeping.
 And now I'm trying to imagine my monitor at 3 times the brightness or 10 times. Uhhh my eyes :)

 /end of the mini rant :)

14
Hardware / Re: Buying a Monitor
« on: 2020-08-05, 01:41:47 »
From experience, testing a few monitors and from reading online (maybe old info) I would say IPS is a must for graphics work.

You could use a cheap lower quality monitor as a second monitor. The quality would not matter as you would move most of your toolbars and buttons there, freeing your main monitor. And as a bonus you can verify on that monitor how people with cheap monitors and TVs will see your work.

But I also dislike monitors with high resolution because I feel they take precious CPU and GPU cycles from rendering and from navigating the viewport and with little benefits. I mean I have an ipad with a so called "retina" screen and yes having such a high resolution is nice but far from a deal-breaker if not, at least for me, especially if it comes with big drawbacks.

But I'm also torn as I have a problem when it comes to verify well the pixel sharpness when producing 4k movies. I can zoom in, and compare with other 4k movies, but it's still a problem. But this issue comes rarely.

Still I'm hoping I will be able to buy high quality monitors in the future with a 2k resolution or about 94 ppi as my current one has.

15
I said this before here, but not sure anyone got it. You can sort of animate a mask.

I think I did it by using the 3ds max render function - render selected object and I designated that selected  object to be a simple animated plane which is made to be non renderable. The plane is animated to move and be where you have your needed area to render.


This method is also good where you have a huge resolution with a scene which is mostly static but you have a small animated object, or objects. It would be a big waste of time to render entire frames for that small object only.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12