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 - Captain Obvious

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12
Resolved bugs / Re: Noise changes every frame =(
« on: 2013-08-26, 20:35:24 »
Fine, let's agree to disagree. :-)

Methods like this1 basically only work if your noise changes from frame to frame.


Resolved bugs / Re: Noise changes every frame =(
« on: 2013-08-26, 20:23:12 »
the idea is that locking the noise pattern is an OPTIONAL feature. Sometimes, it really looks much better than temporaly uncorrelated noise. Just set random seed to 0 and you have uncorrelated noise every time ;)
Yeah, I'm all for having it as an option. Just make sure it defaults to off. :) In modo, it defaults to on and sometimes I forget to turn it off. Mumble, grumble.

Resolved bugs / Re: Noise changes every frame =(
« on: 2013-08-26, 20:04:43 »
Random noise is supposed to change for each frame. Noise generated by screen coordinates only will look like it's sliding over geometry as the camera or the geometry moves, and generally looks shit. It's also impossible to properly filter out in post using motion vectors or optical flow techniques. If you're using Fusion or Nuke, I can probably point you in the right direction. For After Effects, your options are more limited.

Corona looks like it's doing things right.

The problem with the noisy DOF is something that will need to be solved with either noise reduction in post or better adaptive sampling in Corona.

Resolved bugs / Re: Noise in the DOF and Chrome object
« on: 2013-08-09, 23:57:19 »
Didn't you have any problems figuring out bucket rendering? The control of bucket rendering sampling and how passes work is an illogical mess at the moment....
Yeah, it's not the best adaptive sampling I've seen. :-)

I'm not entirely sure what the "adaptive steps" does, but it seems that the total number of samples is base^2 * steps^2, so if you set the base to 1 and the steps to 5, you can get 25 primary samples per pixel, if they're noisy enough. It seems that Corona compares the pixels against the fully rendered image rather than just the pixels produced in the current pass, so when you use bucket rendering with adaptive sampling, each pass will take a little bit less time than the one before (because there are fewer noisy pixels).

Also, I had some problems with PT+HD, where you could see differences between the buckets. Not sure what was causing that. It was fine with PT+PT. I haven't tried the latest build though.

Edit: attached the scene.

Edit again: Sorry, I just realized I'd actually changed the bucket settings... The scene attached uses 1:3 with a threshold of 0.15. Those aren't good settings.

Resolved bugs / Re: Noise in the DOF and Chrome object
« on: 2013-08-08, 22:13:05 »
I've found that bucket rendering is actually a lot more efficient for dealing with this type of noise. The bucket rendering in Corona does some adaptive sampling. It's not great, but it can help. The key thing to remember is that after a certain amount of time rendering, the total error (noise) in your image will be exactly the same regardless of whether you use adaptive sampling or not. The key thing about adaptive sampling is that you can focus the sampling on the noise that's more easily noticed. If an image is so clean that you can't spot any noise in it at all, except for one region of out-of-focus reflections, then Corona's progressive mode isn't going to do you any favours. While it is still technically reducing the error even in the "clean" pixels, you're not going to notice the difference. By using bucket mode, you can increase the noise in the less noisy region to instead reduce noise in the noisy regions. Basically evening out the noise profile.

Look at the two attached images. One is rendered in bucket mode, the other in progressive mode. Both images refined for five minutes. The bucket render has significantly less noise in the out of focus highlights, but is somewhat noisier in the flat regions of the image. Overall, I would say it's the more pleasing of the two. Look at them up close and decide for yourself.

The bucket render was done with 1:5 bucket steps, with a threshold of 0.05. Lowering the threshold will reduce noise in the less noisy regions, but increase noise in the noisier regions, because a lower threshold would catch more pixels for refinement, which means it will complete fewer passes.

Gallery / Re: VCM test
« on: 2013-07-18, 19:34:22 »
That's a pretty substantial difference, and a pretty substantial render time too. Do you have Maxwell, by any chance? If not, any chance you could send the scene and I could give it a try.

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: Whiskey tumbler
« on: 2013-07-05, 23:29:22 »
Did you adjust the contrast in the post-processing options?

If so, don't do that. It looks like you're getting a lot of black clipping. That'll increase the amount of visible noise.

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: SIMPLE RENDERINGS THREAD
« on: 2013-07-03, 14:22:15 »
You can use the depth pass as a mask for how much noise reduction to apply, too. Basically mask out the noise reduction on in-focus areas. That can sometimes help.

And thanks.

Work in Progress/Tests / Re: SIMPLE RENDERINGS THREAD
« on: 2013-07-03, 13:04:24 »
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.

Resolved feature requests / Re: Camera shift-tilt
« on: 2013-05-21, 19:44:51 »
It would be nice with a dedicated real fix to this. The tilt-shift corrector in Max produces results which are incompatible with other software, so it is actually impossible to match this to the shift in Maxwell or modo or what have you, or indeed even real cameras. A real shift lens basically just offsets the image horizontally or vertically. There needs to be settings for film offset, either in mm or as a fraction of the film size. Simply removing the angular distortion like this is not a good method. This is a feature I would consider crucial for arch viz.

Resolved feature requests / Re: Boost light interference?
« on: 2013-03-13, 16:59:49 »
I would still like to know how is this feature called in other renderers, so i can investigate how it works...
It's basically just light texturing. Whether or not it has a name kind of depends on the renderer. Not all software supports this kind of effect. It's potentially very useful, but it's not strictly speaking realistic.

General Discussion / Re: Does Corona work in 3ds Max trial?
« on: 2012-11-06, 17:07:37 »
It's C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Autodesk\3dsMax
Yeah, I deleted that one. Max is still giving me errors, but now Corona works. I'm confused.

General Discussion / Re: Does Corona work in 3ds Max trial?
« on: 2012-11-06, 14:30:49 »
I uninstalled Max, then deleted everything related to Autodesk that I could find. Then re-downloaded and re-installed. Still giving me errors. Grumble grumble.

General Discussion / Re: Does Corona work in 3ds Max trial?
« on: 2012-11-06, 14:10:59 »
Yeah, it's 64-bit. I don't understand why I'm getting errors, though. I mean, surely the default install should just work?

General Discussion / Re: Does Corona work in 3ds Max trial?
« on: 2012-11-06, 14:00:31 »
Okay, I don't understand this at all. I removed everything, and it's still giving me errors. Time to contact support, I guess.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12