Author Topic: SIMPLE RENDERINGS THREAD  (Read 16432 times)

2013-06-30, 01:12:48

Makovsky

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
First of all I would like to say hello to everybody :)

I've named this thread like that, because I think it will be useful to have room to place simple unfinished renders for learning purposes (checking lights, materials, render parameters etc.) for discussion or just for fun at the same time not littering whole WiP section :)
Maybe admins will pin this thread.
If I made something wrong, please rename/delete this topic. :)

I'm new user of corona and previously I used vray and indigo, but damn, corona is fast! I'm amazed by it's speed and quality.

This is my simple render to test corona lights and studio setups - Michelangelo sculpture of David taken from 3d warehouse with turbosmooth. PT + HDcache. The light quality and shaders are amazing! For me it really looks like porcelain ;)


2013-06-30, 09:49:07
Reply #1

Nupsi

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Good idea! I do love those threads at other forums :-)
Your material looks nice, but there are either some really strange mesh-errors or your bumb map goes crazy.

LG
Nupsi

2013-06-30, 12:08:52
Reply #2

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 13698
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Your model looks triangulated as if it had "optimize" modifier.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2013-06-30, 12:56:50
Reply #3

Makovsky

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Quote
Your model looks triangulated as if it had "optimize" modifier.

Yeah but it doesn't matter. Model wasn't the purpose of my tests. :) As I mention before it's sketchup model. When I apply turbosmoth the weird things showed up.. There is no bump only pure mesh (around 1,5M poly)
« Last Edit: 2013-06-30, 13:00:35 by Majkel »

2013-07-01, 00:16:44
Reply #4

yagi

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
why the long render time for something this little? was it intentional?

2013-07-01, 10:54:57
Reply #5

Nupsi

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Cubic ice fun...

EDIT: added some water and slight changes of render settings (higher HD-precision)
I73930 @3.8GHz, PT+HD, ~50mins
« Last Edit: 2013-07-06, 16:17:31 by Nupsi »

2013-07-01, 13:47:13
Reply #6

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 13698
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
Neat! But I'm not sure if you should use HD cache here. It would probably be faster/more accurate with pt+pt only.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2013-07-01, 22:45:54
Reply #7

Makovsky

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Quote
why the long render time for something this little? was it intentional?
Until 1h background was still very grainy.

Ice cube looks pretty good. Could someone explain how HDcache works, when shoud i use it and when pt+pt?

2013-07-02, 12:13:38
Reply #8

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 13698
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
HD cache works much like most biased GI solutions in other renderers (like irradiance map in vray or final gather in mental ray). It sends out finite amount of samples into your scene and "blurs" them to get an approximate version of GI. When you are using pt+hd then pt makes use of information obtained by hd. This usually pays off in interior scenes but in exterior or "one object" scenes hd calculations may slow down your rendering or make it less accurate.

I may be wrong here because I'm basing on my experience and Keymaster's posts from some time ago so corrections are welcome. :)
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2013-07-02, 21:05:45
Reply #9

Polymax

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • CG Generalist
    • View Profile
    • maxkagirov.com
Use Bidir or VCM, it's best for this!
Corona - the best rendering solution!

2013-07-02, 23:34:37
Reply #10

michaltimko

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 311
  • Coronaut (c)
    • View Profile
Playing with BBB`s itnerior scene. Converted to corona and looks good i think.
Coronaut!(c)2011

Supporting Corona in commercial projects since pre-alpha

2013-07-03, 09:41:22
Reply #11

zzubnik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Playing with BBB`s itnerior scene. Converted to corona and looks good i think.

Wow, those look really great!

Is this scene somewhere I can get to try it?

2013-07-03, 12:18:13
Reply #12

theOrzel

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Hello,

Here's my first Corona render. I tried to get shallow DOF in a simple scene, but it is very noisy. Render took around 2h so I don't think it's a matter of time (or is it?). Any suggestions for DOF?

Settings:
Ray tracing: max depth: 30
GI: PT + HD, PT samples: 25, max sample intensity: 20
post: exposure compensation: -4.2, contrast: 0.5, highlight compensation: 1.5
DOF: 135, 2.4f, bokeh default settings

2013-07-03, 13:00:12
Reply #13

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 13698
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
There is no need to change max depth.
When you are rendering something with significant DOF it is better to set PT samples to LOWER value like 8 or even 4. Noise will disappear faster because more samples will be use for antialiasing than for GI.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2013-07-03, 13:04:24
Reply #14

Captain Obvious

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
I've been experimenting with using bucket rendering instead of progressive rendering, and it's giving much better results for super-noisy things like depth of field. Statistically speaking, adaptive sampling (which you get when using buckets) should produce the same total error (noise) in an image, but with a more uniform spread. Pixels that are above the noise threshold will get sampled more, at the expense of the pixels that fall below the noise threshold. so by using bucket rendering in Corona, your less noisy areas will become more noisy, but your more noisy areas will clean up much faster.

Basically, using buckets produces a more uniform noise profile.



Also, cleaning up extremely heavy depth of field like that is basically not doable using brute force monte carlo rendering. The number of samples required is astronomical. You're better off filtering some of the noise in post, rather than trying to get perfect results in the render.