[hdesbois]

My attempt with Lightwave 8.3 :

I'm sure it's possible to get better result, but setup time is long. For this kind of render, I'd prefer to use Maxwell. I'm on a laptop now, so, rendering time is not relevant. I may have another Lightwave try next week when I'm back on my main coputer.
HD

[glebe digital]

Final Lightwave & Maxwell attempt.........no contest really!

[Thomas An.]

glebe,

That is an interesting mood with the green emitter

[Thomas An.]

My attempt with Lightwave 8.3 :

I'm sure it's possible to get better result, but setup time is long. For this kind of render, I'd prefer to use Maxwell. I'm on a laptop now, so, rendering time is not relevant. I may have another Lightwave try next week when I'm back on my main coputer.
HD

Thanks the new image

Interesting ...
The caustic is there, but very sparse... and the caustic on the inside of the ring seems to have a slightly different geometry than expected.

[Thomas An.]

Hi everyone,
Up to now (first phase) the challenge did not have rigid quality requirements, so as to allow some room and see how far the artist will choose to go before considering an image to be "good enough".
Now it is time to tighten the screws a little:
(The main post has been updated with):

SECOND PHASE

MINIMUM JUDGING GUIDELINES

1 - 'V' shaped high definition caustic from the edge of silver ring
2 - Smooth (non splotchy) glowing blurry reflection on the silver coin
3 - Smooth (non splotchy) caustic reflection on the surface of the ground plane between the two coins
4 - Smooth (non splotchy) glowing blurry reflection on the right-hand silver coin
5 - Glow on golden ring (at location 5) interacting with location 4

[dutch_designer]

I posted this one on page 7, I think it got overlooked or something, with it being the last one of the page.. anyways, I think it meets with the new requirements:

[Thomas An.]

I posted this one on page 7, I think it got overlooked or something, with it being the last one of the page.. anyways, I think it meets with the new requirements:

Yup
Looks good in terms of the guidelines, but you are using Maxwell, there is no way to fail in that aspect (The Brazil was starting to look good too, if only it had tighter settings and more render time .. )

The only other thing I am concerned is that why the obj file creates non-smooth images, but people using the 3ds or other have no mesh problems (I used the exact same mesh settings on both)

[dutch_designer]

I posted this one on page 7, I think it got overlooked or something, with it being the last one of the page.. anyways, I think it meets with the new requirements:

Yup
Looks good in terms of the guidelines, but you are using Maxwell, there is no way to fail in that aspect (The Brazil was starting to look good too, if only it had tighter settings and more render time .. )

The only other thing I am concerned is that why the obj file creates non-smooth images, but people using the 3ds or other have no mesh problems (I used the exact same mesh settings on both)

I tried importing the .obj in Studio but the polys were unsmoothed and lots of tris were flipped (you know, having 1 poly, with one tri facing the right direction, and the other one flipped). I used the .3ds files instead (with 3dsmax), but I had to weld the vertices in the ring to make it continuous.

[kirkt]

I'm sort of fascinated by this contest - ultra realism without any reference photo or radiance measurements, etc. How does one go about determinig realism with no objective measure of it? Very interesting, especially in the context of the new, more specific criteria. Nice renders all, BTW. Can't wait to see how this one turns out. Rock on!

[glebe digital]

what we need is a real set-up of this photographed for reference!
I see no point doing further tests with Lightwave, just can't hold a candle to M~R [on caustics, materials, dof, hell everything!]. I'm revising the DoF on the M~R version to try and tighten up on those QC requirements.

[Thomas An.]

I'm sort of fascinated by this contest - ultra realism without any reference photo or radiance measurements, etc. How does one go about determinig realism with no objective measure of it? Very interesting, especially in the context of the new, more specific criteria. Nice renders all, BTW. Can't wait to see how this one turns out. Rock on!

ok, what is the innuendo here ?

Are you saying that the geomtric optic calculations from vray and Maxwell converge (agree) only by coincidence and both might be vastly inaccurate ?

Vray PPT


Vray IR+LC


Maxwell


I did not ask for color matching of the meterial of the scene. You do not have to use spectrophotometers, radiogoniometers, gloss-meters, or light meters. But the basic established rules of geometric optics should be evident and the result should be clean.

[glebe digital]

that 2nd vray shot is very impressive.

[kirkt]

@Thomas An. - No innuendo intended or otherwise. I was just saying that it will be interesting to see what opinions come out of this contest with respect to what is judged "best" or most "realistic" without a reference point in, well, real life. if the caustics you are seeking are the computed ones from a specific application, then there will be inherent bias in what is considered most "realistic". However, we all have our idea of what caustics look like based on seeing them in real life. Certainly you don;t need high precision measurements with various devices to get some input or output goals - nothing beats a quick and dirty reference photo as the "gold standard". I'm just saying that without a "real" reference, it will be interesting to see what the general consensus is regarding what is most "real". No offense intended.

See: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=13120

for example.

[Thomas An.]

if the caustics you are seeking are the computed ones from a specific application, then there will be inherent bias in what is considered most "realistic".

True that on the aesthetic aspect, there will be some bias from person to person. What one considers "real looking" is not necessarily true for all people.

On the other hand, from a physcis standpoint, the placement and location of the caustics in this scene should be a single solution. in other words, all engines should converge to the same locations and caustic shapes. We already have two engines agreeing to a great degree. So I beg to differ that a photo is not necessarily needed for the geometric aspect of light. For example we do not need a photo to tell us if Vray or Maxwell are doing a good job rendering a concave (or convex) mirror. We can use the mathematical models in lieu of reality and calculate the focal points and the like. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... or.html#c1
(I have personally done some test on both Maxwell and Vray on simple geometric optics and the result correspond to the analytical models .... the same models that are used to design the very lenses of your actual camera that you would use to snap a photo in the first place).

Furthermore, do you really need a photo to tell you if in reality the caustics would have splotches ?

[Thomas An.]

Also, I have a feeling that you are hesitant to believe that a serrated coin will produce a caustic pattern like that (my wife had similar issue).

However, if that is the case, keep in mind that we have all from time to time been adamant about the inaccuracy of an image only to be stumped by the way nature works.

And, yes a serrated coin will indeed produce intermittent caustic patterns:

The above coin does not have the exact same geomtery as the coin in this test, but they are similar. (also in the above photo the size of the emitter is not as small as in the test ... the smaller emiiter will produce higher definition caustic)