-
Weider 281 posts
Hi, I played a little with Maxwell renderer. Here are 2 small tests I made. I realisez my computer can't handle really maxwell as it takes a really long time than other people who tested it (I stopped the second test at 64h and it's still noisy, but my computer is only and Athlon 1700+).
I didn't work on the scene really, there are some basic boxes. It was only to make to test Maxwell first. The thing a bit harder in this scene is the room is really long. When you see maxwell render (and a lot of others interior renders) it's 80% near a windows.
I really don't know what to think about them. The first is older than the second render. For me, it's not really photorealist as others renders I saw from maxwell, maybe because the scene is really simple. Maybe I could make another test using a real photo as reference, model the scene perfectly and try to make the render as realist than the photo.
First Test
Second Test
-
maxwell renderer? hmm ive heard of it but never used it. what is it suspossed to produce?
-
Weider 281 posts
-
ar LutiK 455 posts
If it wasn't so grainy, it would almost be as good as finalRender
How long did the render take and at what size? sorry my bad just noticed the 64h and still noisy, way to slow
-
Weider 281 posts
yes it's really slow, I made the render at 1024X768.
As my computer is 3yrs old, the rendertime is incredible, even for a maxwell image. I think the average is more between 16 to 20hours.
In maxwell, you set the sampling level you want. By default 25. then you hit render, and maxwell will make level 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. So if you want to stop it at level 9 you can.
[0h 0m 54s] of [83h 20m 0s] , current sampling level : 0.00
[5h 23m 44s] of [83h 20m 0s] , current sampling level : 10.23
[24h 12m 48s] of [83h 20m 0s] , current sampling level : 13.94
[37h 12m 19s] of [83h 20m 0s] , current sampling level : 14.99
[55h 51m 33s] of [83h 20m 0s] , current sampling level : 16.00
[65h 5m 56s] of [83h 20m 0s] , current sampling level : 16.34
"of [83h 20m 0s]" means I set the max time to 83h. if it doesn't reach the 25 level at 83h, the render will stop.
I think for 25 level, my computer would take some months to reach this level! So it's why it's noisy and as my computer is too slow (and maxwell too), I won't be able to reach a better render for the moment.
-
BColbourn 2,323 posts
-
Weider 281 posts
-
Global 1,589 posts
-
Weider 281 posts
-
Cameron 2,374 posts
-
Weider 281 posts
I'm doing the same render but in Vray, will post it tomorrow
-
Weider 281 posts
Vray test (I chanced 1-2 things but it's still the same scene)
rendertime: 1h17
-
Aden 622 posts
Hey guys.
I used to use maxwell render and i must say its the best renderer for realism to date. I used to do renders at max for 8 hours while i slept.
64h < bit long but it your willing to put the time in it doesnt really matter on the time i think hehe.
I never really understood samples that well, im going to look into it more i used to read maxwell forums alot maybe that will help. Also usually people post render presets that help loads.
Scene setup is great but like you said only a simple setup of boxes, but still cool. I found when i used maxwell i was addicted to doing test renders, the main thing i loved was the reflectivity.
You made me wanna get it again ^^
-Aden
-
BColbourn 2,323 posts
-
Airstyle 32 posts
Ridestowe
can almost guarantee i have a crappier computer than anyone here, behold:
800 mhz p3
256 ram
64mb pci gfx card(i dont even have an agp slot)
bought in 1999 from dell. about 1000$ at the time
...Lol i dont know how you manage - but still - that stuff you produce is noncoherent to your pc specs so..! good work!
-
Aden 622 posts
-
BColbourn 2,323 posts
what can i say, i try. and i'm poor. damn currency! the trick is to never have more than 1 program open at a time and to allow 3ds max at least 10 mins to boot up
-
Weider 281 posts
lol I've never think people where could have a lower computer than mine
Ahtlon 1700+
1gig ram 266mhz
64meg Geforce
-
Onno 65 posts
Some of the renders I have seen done by the Maxwell renderer are very nice, but at the moment I don't really see why anyone would want to use it.
Render times are absolutely bollocks. Maybe for stills it would be okay, but then again... 14 hours for a hypersimple GI scene.
Even though it may be perfectly calculated: who cares. I only care about the end result and how long it takes. If you put Brazil on 6/6 sample settings with 6/6 GI it probably wouldn't take as long as Maxwell.
Anyways: I'll stop bashing. I have a test version too, but haven't had the time to play with it. Problem is of course that playing usually means low settings and quick render times. Let's hope it works for Maxwell too. I'll try and see whether I can compare Maxwell to Brazil, lighting wise.
As said: the idea is nice, but I don't see them becoming a serious player (like Brazil, VRay and finalRender). Maybe when we all have a Pentium 14 with 500 billion gigahertz and 300 terabyte of RAM.
-
Global 1,589 posts
Well - there is deffinately a difference between the two renders with Vray giving it a plastic look. But I'd far rather go with cutting out 63 hours of render time!
You also have the marvels of Photoshop for post render tweaks (which isn't cheating as far as I'm concerned
)
Is a very very quick 15 minute play around with Pshop just to rid of the plastic look to the Vray render.
So Onno - you mean you don't have a Pentium 14 yet?! My PC was designed by Nasa - Dual 1.6 TeraHertz Processor, 60QuadraFlops of RAM and hydrogen cooled (which means it requires foam on the outside to stop my room from feezing - the technicians are having a bit of a problem with the foam falling off and hitting my neighbours house but I'm sure I'll get it sorted...)
-
Airstyle 32 posts
LOL to Global's comment on Onno's comment!
Hey global, do you think you could just write down what you did to get rid of Vray's plastic' look in PS? I know some ways but you've made it look so much better. maybe even a tute? *hint*
To Weider - Its a pretty nice scene - i'm sure all your scaling is correct but it just looks to me as if its compacted and out of scale - not so much in the high quality renders but in your first renders it does to me. lol.
Anyways thats my two cents worth, Greg.
-
Global 1,589 posts
A tutorial? Hmm, I'm not sure that's needed really and I'm not a 'pro' photoshop user.
Basically I tweaked the levels of the original image (CTRL+L) just to bring in a little more contrast. Then I duplicated the image to 2 layers. On one layer I changed the blend mode to Lighten (to bring out the highlights) and on the other layer the Blend mode was Multiply (to really add depth to the shadow... at least I think it was Multiply... dang my awful memory!)
Anyhoo I have a mask on these layers. If I didn't then these two layers would pretty much cancel each other out. With the layer masks I can bring out the highlight where I want it and add depth to the shadow where needed.
Once that is done, create a new layer on top of the stack and 'Apply the image' (Edit > Apply image) Which basically merges all the visible layers (like a snapshot) and puts it into the new layer... From there I added a film grain from the filters and tweaked that with another layer mask.
And there you have it. Mini Tut style!
Weider... apologies for that mini hijack
-
Airstyle 32 posts
sweet thanks global
nice mini.tute lol
I might go try that out now
-
Weider 281 posts
sorry guys, don't have a lot of time these days.
Anyway, here is another small test, but using Vray
-
ivanisavich 4,196 posts
Hmmm...I dunno....the lighting looks much flatter in this one...
-
yep, i think u could do a lot better with vray... whats the render time for this one?
-
Weider 281 posts
1h with photomap and irradiance map. (remember it's made with my athlon 1700+)
Tyson: yes, I agree. it's probably because the skylight is too high and the light isn't enough. I'll try another render today. (I added a HDRI in the skylight slot too)
-
Weider 281 posts
With a little more light
-
hmm it seems that it doesnt have enough samples and bounces, what are ur specs for the photon and irradiance map?
in irradiance map i use to put -3 in the min rate and -2 in the max rate... and if it isnt enough i increase max to -1... it gives good and fast results for most scenes..
-
BColbourn 2,323 posts
-
Weider 281 posts
Sorry to be so long.
Right now, I have 2 Vraylight and 1 sunlight. Took 1h
I'll put the indirect illumination samples a little bit up (to preset medium). In the photon map, the bounce is set to 15. I'll also put the irrandiance map samples to 15 instead of 8.
-
okkkkkk, hope next week we can see the result
jk
-
Weider 281 posts
Another test
(I let it render all the night)
-
BColbourn 2,323 posts
holy crap, that's very nice! love the new angle.
-
Aden 622 posts
put the camera down now.......
dude thats fucking sweet.... that aint no test thats a sweet acomplishment!!!!
-
Weider 281 posts
Another one. thx for you reply guy!!! This scene is hard to light as there is only 1 window. I'll work again on the "main" view.
-
Franklyn 553 posts
that is just simply amazing weider i love the material u have on the floor .
btw global dont u mean liquid nitrogen
?
-
feniks 16 posts
Have you tried the progressive lightcache tracing with Vray ? Gives similar results to Maxwell. Except also huge rendertimes doh. What gives maxwell that extra touch of realism is the grain, I've never seen a grainless image rendered with maxwell.
Some tricks I do to "unplastic" renders with vray is :
- Use Curves instead of levels in Photoshop, they give far better results. And do all colors seperatly, it'll give more feeling & mood to the image.
- In aftereffects you got a very good grain filter standard built in. Use that to add a subtle grain to the image. If you don't have aftereffects you got a different approach but more tricky (add different amounts of noise to the colorchannels, blur them a bit, then copy paste that on top of the original and blend them together.
- Always render with dof on, even it's nearly not visible (real camera's always have dof)
- do a subtle lensdistortion on the final image, especially round the edges.
that's it for now, hope it helped
-
Weider 281 posts
-
feniks 16 posts
-
ivanisavich 4,196 posts
-
BColbourn 2,323 posts
richard rosenman is amazing. he does sooooooooooooo much stuff.
-
Weider 281 posts
Cool I'll take a look. The DOF in Maxwell is cool too. There are some example on the website of Maxwell.
-
KM 17 posts
Maxwell is definately going to be huge in the future. But until they can speed it up it won't get used in film that much.
For stills it's producing some great images though.
-
Hi all, my first post in this forum
First of all, weider, keep it up with the work on maxwell, last renders seems more and more realistic, but i think you must work harder on shaders, the light in the image in his complex very very good, but it looks a bit flat.
For post-production DOF I agree with tyson, rosenman's plug-in work great, but if you don't want to spend extra-money you can achieve similar results too using zdepth channel and default lens blur filter in ps.
there's a simple tutorial on this method (you need registration
), it's in italian language, but it's quite easy and there're a lot of images. Anyway if you want a translation just ask
