Maxwell Render | Official public forum

For the past year i have been a full supproter of Maxwell Render. i have turned my entire production to MR and i have to admit that i love it. Yet after watching that post on the Fryrender displacement feature makes me want to hit my head aginst the monitor.
1>Are we going to have that capability at any point, may be next update?
2>What is going on, these people are also based in Madrid?

Please can somebody seriously enlighten me? Seriously, the last thing i want to do is to vear my NL support after so long....

Thanks

Here is another question, out of ignorance...
I know that the judicial sytem in Spain Blows, Howevere it seems that Fryrender is extreemly similar to NL's.
Just wondering

I'm starting to get the idea that some people actually can't see the cavernous quality difference between Maxwell images and FryRender images. I'm all for competition, but it is just no contest at this point. Perhaps it will fill a nice niche for hobbyists, who knows? ... but my clients wouldn't go for it, that's for sure, certainly not since they've been spoiled with Maxwell, and I can spot the problems a mile away.

Somebody once said - generously - it was 90% of Maxwell. Sure... the 90% that doesn't have to do with image quality, I guess. That, plus all of its hastily "engineered," compromised versions of Maxwell's features makes it a fiberglass Ferrari kit-car knockoff with imitation leather seats, 16" wheels, cassette deck and 4-cylinder engine. It can fool some people from across the street; ain't no Ferrari.

A render engine that's "loaded with features" and doesn't cut it, image quality-wise is worthless... unless you're one of the (lucky?) ones who can't tell the difference, in which case I say eat your heart out, Junior.

When Fry renders can compete with Maxwell renders, I'll happily give it a run. Until then, it's the gold standard for me, I'm afraid.


_Mike

I do agree with you Mike, and specially on the interior scenes it is more noticeable, to me they look like a better version of Vray. Yet that one featured on a lower quality render engine would really help on maxwell. Trust me, i have stuck for this long and changed my entire world to work with MR, so my vote of confidence was casted long ago. Just the proximity and the fact that thatfeature is available makes me kind of mad, i must admit.
I am very excited about the new release and lets hope it is everything they say it is.

Thanks for the reply Mike.

Now lets go get some passover food. Passover crashing

It just all depends on what level of quality you want to represent, as a professional and as an artist. It's much easier to throw features together when the quality bar is so low. It's a quantity versus quality issue. Maxwell's features aren't thrown together with Scotch tape and papier-mache, so they take longer to develop... but that's why Maxwell looks like Maxwell and FryRender doesn't. The whole "But wait! There's more crap!" infomercial mentality doesn't work on me. I'm just a touch more savvy a consumer than to be fooled by that one, I'm afraid. Like I said, the proof is (or isn't in this case) in the renders. I always tell my competition, "Maxwell is slow and noisy and you shouldn't use it. Please." I think I'll add, "In fact, you should use Fry!" It keeps my house payment secure.


_Mike

mverta wrote: "Maxwell is slow and noisy and you shouldn't use it. Please." I think I'll add, "In fact, you should use Fry!" It keeps my house payment secure.

_Mike

I have a similiar line I use when I'm asked what I rendered 'x' image in. I blather on about the cost, learning curve, render farms etc.

While imaging isn't even my field - I have also not been impressed with fry images - I can't put my finger on it - but they are somehow missing that 'wow - it looks so real' feeling. I'm with you insomnia on the waiting and watching - it's not fun or easy - especially with rsi induced by constantly having to re-navigate paths in mr (this one is especially frustrating for me)

Kandor

Mike, what you're talking about is not "quality" but a certain look. The "look" is something like using a different film in your camera. When we browse through the MW beta images the look was really different than what we have in 1.1. Way back it was more blurry, different contrast and etc. That was the reason why Maxwell became so popular. When we look at new fry pics we see people using alot of non-post-prod sharpening which makes the pictures a bit synthetic-like because the sharpness brings out the artificiality of the models,textures,bumps. Also the noise pattern is not so good looking but that's an inevitable side-effect of the sampling scheme.

Maxwell Beta was really a king at making the synthetic models to look life-like. Sure you give it a certain sharpness, have nice looking photo-grain and you can even throw in a stronger chromatic-abberation. All these features will make it more life-like and therefore better looking. But when you sharpen it, give it enough time so the nice looking noise goes away then it's basicaly like using a flawless professional camera. You will start seeing the artificiality which was masked by the features of the renderer.

Such an unbiased path-tracer is something very interesting. Simply if your input data was perfect then your output data should be perfect too. Perfect materials and modeling makes perfect pictures. That's what the "unbiased" word is for

So the primary goal is to have as much "looks" as possible since variety is really the spice of life and different films suit different scenarios. The current maxwell is not good for every scene and such scenes could look better with fry's different looks (because it has more). Once both renderers have enough looks this issue won't be such an issue and again the focus will be more on the artist and what is he capable of. But still it's more like up to 70% on the artist how good will the picture be looking. We see insane pictures did with that "low quality" Vray and honestly they can exceed the look because it's so tweakable you can get virtually anything from it.

And features scotch taped???. That's BS talk. Like the thing with that drummer guy before.

Mike look, you're an author of not very wise statements so on this issue you are probably not reaching the the true wise "golden standard". You may be a pro, done this and that but still that doesn't mean you're always right. And in this case I take again my mini right to tell you that you're horribly wrong and you simply do it because of your own personal let's say "issues".

I agree, the images just aren't there for me.
Frances does incredible work. She could probably make Flamingo look like a contender.
And there might be a few other decent images in the galleries. But across the board, Fry just isn't producing what I need. I don'know anything about the workflow.
Precious metals and gems are noticeably missing. Which are my only interest.
The diamonds in scotch glass is curious, but not compelling. The glass surface itself is way off the mark to my eye. And submerged gems........I have no customers for that. It is a cute idea for a render though.
I hope the competition benefits us all.

Mike look, you're an author of not very wise statements so on this issue you are probably not reaching the the true wise "golden standard". You may be a pro, done this and that but still that doesn't mean you're always right. And in this case I take again my mini right to tell you that you're horribly wrong and you simply do it because of your own personal let's say "issues".

Could not agree more, thanks for putting this in a way better than I was about to attempt.

I love how it becomes all about me with you guys.

Forget me, I'm nobody... just go worry about your render engine, which if it's Fry, sucks by comparison. It's a cute attempt, and they're real "go-getters" over there, so yay for them. But I need quality, and it ain't it. You want to play semantics games about subjective viewpoints, okay here's one: my clients think Maxwell looks better, I know Maxwell looks better, that's what they demand, and I'm making more money with it, so that's pretty much the end of the story. There are quantifiable reasons Fry doesn't hold a candle to Maxwell's image quality, but some people can't or don't want to see it. And really, Who cares? Some people like Spam, too...

My college roommate loved Spam and Libby's Potted Meaty Food Product. You can't tell him it sucks, because he loves it. But to this day, he can't figure out why people don't come to his dinner parties. Fry render guys are just like that.

So, you heard it here: FryRender - the Spam of rendering engines. Just like potted meat: a lot of stuff in there, none of it good. Ground-up byproducts of the filet mignon that is Maxwell. Come to think of it, Fry is the perfect name for it: a flash of taste, no nutrition; no good for you.

Enjoy your lunch, I guess. Or better yet, show me the Fry engine looking better than Maxwell or stop wasting my time.

_Mike

Alright! You guys want to duke it out over Frye Vs Maxwell be my freaking guest.

But I draw the line when you start dissin' spam! Or for that matter Libby Products!

My dog actually turned his nose up at the Libby's. I never thought I'd see the day.

_Mike

P.S. There really isn't much "duking it out" to do, is there? I've stayed out of these discussions because there's not a lot of there, there. I see a Fry render and it's just never impressive. I just need the best images I can get to, and if it were Fry, then it'd be Fry. But it's not, it's Maxwell. Still, I'm amazed when some people say they can't tell the difference. Seriously.

Yeah, just trying to diffuse any potential for tension (don't want to go back to the good old days of Maxwellrender Forum Wars).

In all actuality though, it really comes down to if the client is happy. Since I deal in archviz primarily, most of my client's could care less if the image is photo-real, what renderer I used blah blah blah... they just want a 'marketable image.'

What I will say though, is it's almost a suicide move to go from one render to another on a client. They spot the difference immediately. A Client's psyche can easily be fixated on a particular 'look' rendering them bias (hidden pun there).

It's all subjective in the end. If your making $$$ with whatever is all that matters I guess. Sh!t there guys/gals out there kicking a$$ with max scanlines! WTF

Luis

Absolutely you're right... it's the strongest argument to say, "The right tool for the right job." Of course.

I think what's different about this debate is that Fry couldn't be more directly trying to copy Maxwell, and Maxwell's look. And we don't get a lot of clients weighing in here, this is a forum for the artists. So what we should all hopefully have in common is pursuit of the best images. If we end up with some clients who can't tell the difference, I guess it helps those who choose the inferior photoreal engine.

But one thing I'm curious about your statement is that you say since you do ArchViz, you're not interested in photorealism. But I thought that Maxwell has a huge ArchViz userbase that is extremely demanding when it comes to photorealism, and especially light propagation, which is Maxwell's strong suit. No?

_Mike

Well it's kind of a mix for me in my experience.

Photorealism in renders is definitely in demand for the archViz sector but there is still just as much demand for less photoreal and sketchy renders too.

It really all depends on where the project is in development. Early on, most of my clients don't want photo-real because they feel it alienates their client from participating in the design process. They say, "Well damn, looks like you figured it out." This is bad for the architect/client dynamic.

What I'll usually see is photoreal in demand for situation like getting approval from some beureaucratic review board (landmark building approval for instance) or when an architect is trying to 'win' a project. For as much though as I hear, 'can you make it real?', I'll also hear from others 'make it look sketchy.'

Architects are a weird bunch



Luis

PS - I have to admit that maxwell will definitely generate a bigger 'wow' in my experiences than the other engine I use. Bugger for me is I can't rock a maxwell exterior worth my weight. They're all looking so damn CG it's driving me nuts. Nothin worse then using a photoreal engine and coming out with CG aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrghhhh! This is more a comment on my inability to use the software proficiently though.