Author Topic: Is this possible with corona? (proper brushed metal)  (Read 1676 times)

2018-12-05, 22:11:43
Reply #15

Jpjapers

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
I let that link here, really interesting and informative : https://renderman.pixar.com/stories/cars-3

Incredibly interesting! Worth it for the Close up pixar renders haha.

2018-12-05, 23:00:33
Reply #16

Fluss

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
I let that link here, really interesting and informative : https://renderman.pixar.com/stories/cars-3

Incredibly interesting! Worth it for the Close up pixar renders haha.

If you read carefully, it's not about close-up but on the contrary for details preservation when an object is far away from the camera. :-)

2018-12-05, 23:20:55
Reply #17

Jpjapers

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
I let that link here, really interesting and informative : https://renderman.pixar.com/stories/cars-3

Incredibly interesting! Worth it for the Close up pixar renders haha.

If you read carefully, it's not about close-up but on the contrary for details preservation when an object is far away from the camera. :-)

Good point well made

2018-12-07, 10:34:47
Reply #18

David Males

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
    • DAVAID Archviz

Yeah, I would highly suggest avoiding <1 blurring in Corona, it will eventually lead to some sort of visual artifact at arbitrary combination of resolution & glancing angle when you least expect it. It will give you the result you want in one moment and that produce total artifact in slightly changed angle/resolution.
To make CoronaBitmap more useful, a totally different algorithm should have been introduced as high-quality alternative.


Hey Juraj, just noticed this advice of yours - this applies only for normal/bump maps, correct? I mean 99% of people is using 0,01-0,1 blur on other textures to get the detail..
Great stuff anyway! Looking forwards!)

2018-12-08, 15:19:20
Reply #19

Juraj Talcik

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 3611
  • Tinkering away
    • View Profile
    • studio website
Try using 0.01 on already sharp bump/normal map high-res texture, then render said render in high-res (5-8k) and you will start to notice unwelcome surprise at many grazing approaching angles :- ). It's not pretty...

Then again, most people just use all sorts of crap bitmaps in bump, and if you render under small-to-mid res, bitmap filtering will literally erase ton of detail.

There really isn't one good value because it just depends on so many factors. 0.01-0.1 might give you better results in some cases but provide poor issues in other. With default filtering you're at least safe. I can't afford to send render to high-res final and then look in the morning and notice artifacts.

We need better bitmap filtering that doesn't need any sort of tinkering. Something that would finally give CoronaBitmap a reason to properly exist :- ).
talcikdemovicova.com  Website and blog
be.net/jurajtalcik   Our studio Behance portfolio
Instagram   Our studio Instagram, managed by Veronika

2019-02-01, 19:08:34
Reply #20

Fluss

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
I wonder if Fstorm is able to sample bump so good, just because in the video was used its own noise shader? It might be that this trick won't work with regular noise or bitmap texture.

I wondered this too. At same though, someone told me they integrated this ? http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~lingqi/publications/paper_glints3.pdf

The benefits of that go way beyond anisotropy alone. It simplifies shader creation and gives super accurate result regardless of resolution. Would be super nice to have that.

Juraj, finally took time to plunge a bit deeper in the paper you linked here and damn yeah! That's really cool!