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 - dj_buckley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Here's another way of looking at it.  Rather than asking for scenes that demonstrate it doesn't work as expected.  Let's ask for scenes where people have successfully used caustics on a live arch viz client commissioned production job (other than an outdoor sunlit pool or closeup of a glass/water).  I don't think you'll find many - if any at all but I'll happily be proven wrong.

2
I need help / Re: EXR not loading in photoshop
« on: 2020-06-23, 09:03:10 »
It's a completely random issue.  The only fix I've found is installing Proexr or ExrIO for Photoshop.  My preference is Proexr

3
As much as the OP has gone about making their point in the wrong way, they do have a point.  Caustics is slow in my experience (and I have a 3990x, paired with a i9 and some xeons).

Some of the response to the OP have been 'user error/rarely works out of the box/needs tweaking/use a different render engine then/that image is shit so caustics are the least of your worries'  which as Marchik has pointed out, is the exact opposite of how it was sold to us as a 'new feature'.  If we're told it works out of the box and is a 'one click solution' then why would we expect anything different?

Also questioning why you'd want caustics in certain scenes seems a bit odd to me, if your goal is to achieve ultimate realism, the scene in reality would have caustics and the tools you're using have a 'one click' caustic solution then why wouldn't you want caustics, no matter how small the effect on the scene?  Sat at my desk just now and there are multiple examples of reflective/refractive caustics going on around me.

I saw Recent Spaces mentioned as a valid reference point for caustics working in production renders.  Their work is great and the caustics look great, but following them on various social media channels it's evident that they've had to put a lot of R&D in to get it to that point, which suggest it really isn't as simple as made out.  And to be fair, in terms of caustics, they are all still relatively simple scenes, outdoor, pool, single sunlight.  I don't see any caustics on the dusk ones which would be the complex scenes in terms of lighting.  They even say this themselves in your interview with them here - https://corona-renderer.com/blog/recent-spaces-test-out-caustics-in-production-scenes/ "They’re now an essential part of making water look real, at least in daytime shots with strong direct light."  And that statement pretty much backs up the only time it works as described in your marketing material - simple and fast-ish.

As already mentioned, it's great in simple scenarios, there's a reason why all tutorials/examples/demos for caustics are simple outdoor pools or a single glass with water in a studio environment, anything beyond this really does start to take forever.  The demo scenes aren't your typical production jobs.

So far in this thread, I've seen 'send us your examples that you're having difficulty with' - I think the reason you've had no response to this is because there aren't any, people have cancelled renders before getting something worth showing. 

I've tried to use caustics on a number of occassions and ended up giving up because what I was seeing wasn't worth the massive increase in rendertime.  The difference in time between having/not having caustics is too great if you aren't equipped with a huge render farm and/or you're on a tight production schedule (which is a lot of the time).  The example I tried was an open plan interior with some glassware/water on a dining table, a few highly reflective elements dotted around the scene and otherwise normal materials - the interior takes a couple of hours to render without caustics at 5k, turning on caustics more than doubles the render time.  I don't think that's a particularly unusual scenario for a production job and it's one that in reality would definitely have and benefit from visible caustics adding to the realism.  This project has some shots that I think would take a considerable amount of time to render - https://www.archdaily.com/225678/shaw-house-patkau-architects and even then, they're still relatively simple scenes.  Here's another not so typical example, that I wouldn't even attempt :) https://www.archiproducts.com/en/news/raytrace-by-benjamin-hubert_70297

So while these features are great in theory, they're usage is probably limited to the larger studios in a production environment for the time being.  And although the OP had an interesting approach to making their point - it's not broke, but the point is still valid and when taking into account the 'marketing blurb' for caustics I think the responses are a bit 'off'.

A lot of frustration boils down to the marketing material and how things are sold - this https://coronarenderer.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000056738-how-to-render-caustics-with-the-new-caustics-solver- starts with "enabling effortless use of caustics in your scenes" and "Since the new caustics solver is a one-click solution, you do not have to worry about anything more than your materials in order to get plausible caustics effects." which are very enticing, so of course users will no doubt go and open a scene, enable caustics as described, only to then realise its actually pretty slow.  Whereas had they scrolled to the very very bottom of the article they'd have found this tucked away "Do not enable caustics “just for the heck of it”. Rendering with caustics enabled is still slower than rendering without them and unless it’s absolutely necessary, keep caustics to the minimum."

TLDR the general vibe is that caustics are simple and relatively fast if you're rendering a pool, outside in direct sunlight.  If you're not, it's probably not worth it unless you have plenty of time to kill.

4
Be careful with this setup though, it could result in impossible to remove fireflies

5
I need help / Re: Reflection Override Issue
« on: 2020-05-28, 01:12:02 »
There is no jpeg.  With a simple sun and sky, it looks as expected, the shadow from the frames etc transitions nicely.  If I turn on the reflection override I get that much darker shadow before it turns into the softer shadow

6
I need help / Reflection Override Issue
« on: 2020-05-27, 14:58:31 »
Please see attached, can anybody explain why I get this harsh dark shadow transition when I enable reflection override, doesn't matter if the reflection override is white/black or a jpeg.

It's lit with a simply sun and sky system.


7
General Discussion / Re: question RAW RENDER
« on: 2020-05-07, 18:41:34 »
You wish to know how Bertrand got from the darker render (RAW Render) to the brighter render (RAW Render with Post production)??

8
General Discussion / Re: Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-07, 16:55:13 »
Cool.  Back to the original point though and to summarise.  The TR is absolutely lighting quick, it just so happens this scene isn't the best for testing as its too simplistic and I'll really see the benefits on a more complex scene.  I think everyone has kinda answered my question that I don't have a problem as such, just needs a more 'testing' test.

9
General Discussion / Re: Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-07, 16:19:53 »
i mean, that's my usual setup for final renders.  So I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that rendering it as per I normally would, noting down the time, then doing the same but with the TR added and comparing the difference, is a decent way of comparing the speed increase?

10
General Discussion / Re: Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-07, 16:17:26 »
Yep, was a super simple scene.  I'd assumed the test would be relative for more complex jobs

11
General Discussion / Re: Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-06, 20:07:05 »
I'll give it a go.  It was rendered at 5k pixels though.  The issue I have with anything other than noise threshold is its just pure guesswork.

To few passes and it might be too noisy, too many passes and it could be wasted render time

12
General Discussion / Re: Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-06, 17:41:31 »
All to 2.5 Noise Threshold.

It was all done from the same machine (the i9) jus ticking off and on the boxes for all the different combinations and rerendering

Apart from the local TR render where I opened it on the TR and did a local render

13
General Discussion / Re: Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-06, 08:31:46 »
For sure.  I'm just amazed that it's so quick that it's more efficient to leave the older boxes out of the rendering altogether

14
General Discussion / Need some help from the Techies
« on: 2020-05-05, 23:08:02 »
So I've just added a 3990x to my arsenal.

As things stand I currently have 3 boxes

Xeons Box - E5 2640 v3 (x2) - this is old
i9 Box - i9 7980XE
Threadripper box - 3990x

I've just tested a quick scene.

Before today I was working on the i9 Box and sending DR renders with the Xeons joining in.

So here are my rendertimes.

i9 on it's own - 19 mins 9 seconds

i9 with Xeons DR - 13 mins 40 seconds

i9 with Xeons and Threadripper DR - 9 mins and 36 seconds

i9 with Threadripper DR - 10 mins and 49 seconds

I then fired up the scene locally on the Threadripper and it rendered in 8 mins and 34 seconds.

The Threadripper on it's own was the fastest option.  I don't understand.  Has adding the Threadripper just made my other two machines completely redundant in terms of rendering?  Is it that fast that the other 2 are hindering its capabilities?  Or have I got a problem somewhere?  Network maybe?



15
I need help / Re: Hdri + artificial lighting problems
« on: 2020-04-27, 13:43:18 »
Just by the power of logic, if you're artificial lights are correct real world values, and your HDRI is overpowering them, that tells me your HDRI is too strong, so lower the multiplier to suit your scene.

It's difficult to help without screenshots.  But just lower the multiplier.  Just because the 3D Collective PDF states to use a multiplier of 32, doesn't mean you have to.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21