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 - Fluss

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37
31
Gallery / Re: CGI Shworeel 2020
« on: 2020-05-04, 17:26:20 »
Really nice Romuald, I loved it! Keep up the good work

32
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-04, 17:23:48 »
LMAO, you're quoting me totally out of context. If you still did not get my point then there is not so much I can do. Anyway, I'll leave it here as I don't want to pollute the thread even more. let's move on

33
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-04, 13:05:05 »
The thing is plenty of threads like this exist on the forum and they're all the same -> "Look how it's good", "Are you blind", "We want the same". Basically people moaning they want photo-real results without doing their part.
People keep posting example pictures from the internet, which they have no clue how they were made, how much post-production there is, how much effort the artist put in to look like that etc etc... Basically attributing the fact that the image looks good because of the renderer and not because of the artist.

So I tried to orient the discussion on a break it down approach. If it is so simple and Fstorm is so magical, show us examples you made and compare the results with what you can produce in Corona, 1:1. It's easy to make claims, it's less to prove them. The side by side comparison I've seen so far are not as mindblowing as some of you claim it to be. I never denied there is something common to some of the Fstorm renders we've seen, I'm just inclined to understand why rather than asking for something blindly...

Everybody is allowed to express an opinion, including me! So if I find these ever returning comments useless, I am allowed to express it. The thing is those are just making the thread going in circles like the 99 others before. Now if I offended some of you by calling those garbage, I apologize for that. I'm just tired of seeing the same stuff over and over again.


34
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-04, 11:43:25 »
I did not ask anyone to shut up.

I'm not neglecting anything.

We are trying to answer one question. Not "did you see it ?", not "Do you like it ?", but "Why?". That's the point.

35
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-04, 10:54:00 »
May I ask what exactly is your point? You claim that Corona is a perfect render engine and devs. could go home and stop optimizing it?
It is NOT perfect and still needs a good amount of work until it can be called really photo-realistic. PERIOD !

Calling other peoples` thoughts "garbage" is an offense to all the guys here that take their precious time, energy and experience, willing to
make this great software even better.

I am sure the devs at Corona are not offended that users make suggestions. Actually, the nowadays quality of this software is based on the open minded attitude of the Corona dev team, not on an attitude of ignorance and "defending the existing limitations".

I'm just asking for a pragmatic approach. If you follow my post history, you'll actually see that I'm trying to push for some improvements as well. But come on, comparing a photograph of a kitchen with a render of a completely different scene, Making a poll with random renders... what's the point of this? This is useless as this proves nothing -> garbage. I'm not defending anything, you do.

I'm sorry for you but @BardhylM was right.

disclaimer : just to clarify, when I said no controlled environment, I was talking about the process of comparing real photos to renders. That part was not about lupaz test which is great even if it has some flaws I pointed out. So your test lupaz was not included in the garbage stuff.

36
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-04, 07:38:06 »
Every single loader, every engine, has this standardized differently (including starting angle!).

This what hurt the most in those comparisons... Fstorm loader is indeed mirrored.. It seems like lupaz corrected it in the last render, not saying much about it.. Guys, checking the technical side is crucial in those kinds of comparisons, so as explaining the process... Everybody was taking a conclusion on renders with different lighting.... That sucks.

A lot of posts above were complete garbage.. comparing real photos to renders with completely different subjects, no controlled environment etc etc.. No need to expand more, this is useless. Let's not make this thread a complete junk pile.

Please lupaz, keep conducting your current test, it's interesting. But please make it fair and accurate. First thing would be to make them 1:1. So no missing materials/maps (if something do not work in an engine, should be changed by something that both supports in both scenes), same lighting (seems to be a little bit off still, based on the highlights upstairs), and a matching exposure. This would be a good starting point on which you can iterate.

Also, Fstorm as no caching solution, it's BF+BF. Not saying you have to change this one but this might explain some really fine details discrepancy some are talking about. Fstorm was remapping the glossiness range from [0.4;1.0] to [0.0-1.0], is it still the case? This could have a huge impact so keep that in mind.

37
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-02, 21:31:24 »
Here is another misconception: Most of the time, if your render looks too saturated after tone mapping, it's because your diffuse (or any other colormap it is) was set too saturated on the first sight.

38
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-01, 17:57:32 »
I really did not create this thread with the intention of comparing FStorm and Corona Renderer...

I think people are making the comparison because Fstorm has the best tonemapping algorithm out of all common rendering engines at the moment.

The thing is, as Juraj pointed out, we're not even sure the "Fstorm look" can be attributed to tone mapping only. So further investigations need to be conducted before making such a claim.

39
General Discussion / Re: Fume FX5
« on: 2020-05-01, 15:45:37 »
Daily build 2020-04-28 changelog :



You should use phoenixFD

40
Bug Reporting / Re: AMD vs INTEL Far Bump Calculation
« on: 2020-05-01, 11:27:05 »
Waiting for the fix then, thx for the update rowmanns. Btw, is affecting the noise map only or does it extends to anything bump related?

41
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-04-30, 19:04:54 »
There you are, the effect on this one is more what we are referring to when talking about Fstorm TM. I wouldn't even call this image realistic, there is a bunch of stuff that are off but there is something in it that feels natural indeed.

42
That's a tough one for me. It would make sense for the VFB to be Post-production only, ala Vray. But on the other hand, it's great to have control over rendering exposure straight from the VFB. Does it makes sense to implement a similar behavior as light mix -> a bake to scene/camera exposure button ?? So it remains a post-process spinner but still has the possibility to update rendering exposure

43
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-04-30, 17:46:14 »
I don't know if image compression ruin all of these but to be honest, the last render looks the best of all of those to my eye

44
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-04-30, 17:12:07 »
Also, what's make Fstorm appealing on the first sight, to me at least, is that the tone mapping curve is not driven by the LUT so you can use the LUT slot for other purposes. If you look at Johaness workflow, he is using LUTs to stylize his renders (desaturate colors, shifting black etc etc..)

Just wanna add that I know curves are there but I find them uber-sensitive and it's impossible to fine-tune, I never use them.

45
Bug Reporting / Re: AMD vs INTEL Far Bump Calculation
« on: 2020-04-30, 17:06:30 »
any news on this issue? I still have artifacts on the latest daily build

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37