[deadalvs]

i'd sue the painter !

but the lighting is cool now ... !

[iandavis]

It's a light simulator, and a camera simulator... with a real camera I can't do what you are trying to do... not easily anyway.

the same rules apply here. Correct me if i'm wrong but noise is the inevitable result of not enough information per square 'whatever'.

The solution in the real world is to cheat. No good interior shot is completely free of some fakery, whether it's a reflector hidden from the camera or a big strobe... its there. You need to do the same thing with Maxwell, it's not the renderer's fault, any more then it is the film's fault. Equalize the dynamic range and noise will go away (more)

General rule of thumb, outside only 2 stops brighter then inside. Thus, DON'T USE THE SUN. It's THOUSANDS of times brighter then a 400W bulb or emitter. The don't do it in films for the same reason. More control, more limited dynamic range 'friendly'.

Pump a lot of light into your scene. More then you will need. You will then be able to 'stop down' your aperture and get better depth of field.

Put the emitter planes pretty close to the window about 4 feet large enough to not go out of sight from the inside... about 2x the size of the window. This will produce the 'light being thrown in from every direction' feel, like a real window does. You can also map a simple color map to it.. very subtle to simulate the blue on top, warm on bottom nature of window light.

Use interior window shaped planes positioned off camera in the same direction as a window would point. Use other 'theoretical' windows to light your scene, you can literally move the 'wiindow' around behind the camera to get the right look, pre-render.

Point a warm reflector from the ceiling, aim at dark shadow areas. The tone of the room can be controlled with these lights to fill shadows with cool or warm light. warm light will give the feeling of a cool overcast day outside, and cool will provide the bright summer sun feel. If you are getting uneven lighting, you can make larger slighting curved (convex) shapes which will simulate light bouncing of the ceiling/wall corner. Wall color can be added to this light to help sell the 'wall is actually behind the camera' thang.

I'd also recommend setting this up in something quicker to render... realtime even, like fprime.

I don't know offhand (since I've not tried it) is if maxwell has negative lights. In Lightwave you input a negative value for brightness, the lights then suck light. Which is very usefull for pulling down hot areas just a bit, or creating 'unraytraced' shadows.

just some ideas. good luck

[zoppo]

nice one iandavis. thanks.

time to change your signature back?

[leoA4D]

Now THAT is helpful! Thanks, iandavis.

[iandavis]

If anyone actually gets positive results from any of this... I'd love to see it? Thanks.

TTFN blokes.

[jfrancis]

This is an important point iandavis makes:

for everyone who is afraid to cheat in maxwell -

This kind of cheating is essential in good photography. It happens all the time.

[thxraph]

i think your have noise because your ground is way too reflective, so that bounce & bounce

[iandavis]

yeah, actually everyone has the attitude. "don't care, just get the image I want". I have some friends that worked on star trek:enterprise and I learned a few things about how much nobody really cares about the art. Only what will sell.

This is something I don't think Next Limit got when making maxwell. I think the harsh reality is that reality does NOT sell. That is, unless it's the same price as 'really close to reality' which is what most people peddle.

In my own experience in CG and clients I must agree. One client asked me why it took so long, then when I started to give him some of the basic steps he threw up his hands and in an exasperated tone says "I don't care about that stuff!! I guess, just get it done". Yes, he's blunt, but that kind of attitude is pretty common.

Maxwell IMO should be CLEARLY featured to take advantage of the current compositing crowd. Most people I work with and for think one-off images are for artists and people who don't have to earn a living. I tend to agree. 90% of my client work is geared around getting decent quality for what is paid. Unfortunately without features geared toward integrating generated images into existing footage, maxwell will mostly be used for higher end stuff, single images for buildings, etc. Medium end animation work and imaging wont be so quick to integrate Maxwell.

From my own uses I generate an image with maxwell and animate objects over using the maxwell generated background as a base for the shadow, reflection, object layers. This is a massive time saver and though it's harder to integrate maxwell frames then those generated by Lightwave or fPrime.

This may sound off topic, but I think that's a very important point. People cheat to get the images we see every day in media. The same images which most of us using maxwell tend to aspire to reach. Those who do plow ahead, ripping through the 'reality simulator' barrier, shoving tools and ideas like ill-fitting lego blocks into and through Maxwell's protective bubble of reality generation. I mean the allure of maxwell is like the mythical sirens... luring artists to an unsuspecting death on the shoals of physically accurate light.

[ivox3]

Yes , ... I'm definitely shipwrecked on those shoals.. ..lol.

[zoppo]

i used to have the same problem and it's the ags on the windows, get rid of it

i think your have noise because your ground is way too reflective, so that bounce & bounce

just for the record: my last post on page 3:

rendered at 3500x2100 to SL12.11 in about 19h with one x2-4800 - i used some slight noise reduction and could use it a full res. some post in ps.

i'm quite happy (and eagerly waiting for 1.2)

[jdp]

yeah, actually everyone has the attitude. "don't care, just get the image I want". I have some friends that worked on star trek:enterprise and I learned a few things about how much nobody really cares about the art. Only what will sell.

This is something I don't think Next Limit got when making maxwell. I think the harsh reality is that reality does NOT sell. That is, unless it's the same price as 'really close to reality' which is what most people peddle.

In my own experience in CG and clients I must agree. One client asked me why it took so long, then when I started to give him some of the basic steps he threw up his hands and in an exasperated tone says "I don't care about that stuff!! I guess, just get it done". Yes, he's blunt, but that kind of attitude is pretty common.

Maxwell IMO should be CLEARLY featured to take advantage of the current compositing crowd. Most people I work with and for think one-off images are for artists and people who don't have to earn a living. I tend to agree. 90% of my client work is geared around getting decent quality for what is paid. Unfortunately without features geared toward integrating generated images into existing footage, maxwell will mostly be used for higher end stuff, single images for buildings, etc. Medium end animation work and imaging wont be so quick to integrate Maxwell.

From my own uses I generate an image with maxwell and animate objects over using the maxwell generated background as a base for the shadow, reflection, object layers. This is a massive time saver and though it's harder to integrate maxwell frames then those generated by Lightwave or fPrime.

This may sound off topic, but I think that's a very important point. People cheat to get the images we see every day in media. The same images which most of us using maxwell tend to aspire to reach. Those who do plow ahead, ripping through the 'reality simulator' barrier, shoving tools and ideas like ill-fitting lego blocks into and through Maxwell's protective bubble of reality generation. I mean the allure of maxwell is like the mythical sirens... luring artists to an unsuspecting death on the shoals of physically accurate light.

this post shall be the explaining note of "as easy as a taking a photo" slogan. Couldn't agree more.

[michaelplogue]

You know, I hate to bring this up, but there are at least a couple of renderers out there (Brazil and Fry) that are using the "portal" trick to significantly help with interior renders. All this is, is some sort of geometry over the windows that tells the rendering engine where light needs to enter - so it doesn't have to waste it's time (literally) banging its head uselessly against a brick wall.

It's not new, and it's not innovative. But it works....

I guess the point is: NL needs to stop worrying so much about being "first," and concern themselves more with what is best for their clients.

[iandavis]

yeah. LOL

It's a contradictory statement.

Easy as taking photos.

Newbies: don't find taking pictures at all easy. They buy rangefinder digital cameras and several SD cards and complain about the price of film. Once you explain that you can ERASE the film and start again there is excitement, then immediately anger toward the person who sold them so many SD cards.
Newbies on Maxwell: Kidding right? They can't use a digital camera, there is about a .00001% chance they can get maxwell up and running without somebody sitting right there helping.

----------

Intermediate Photographer: Knows what an SLR is, though couldn't tell you what the acronym stands for. Likes the idea of interchangeable lenses and often can be spotted with the latest fully automatic Canon or Nikon gear. Decent results can be seen in their work, though mostly it's photos of the wife, son and cat in various stages of stupidity.

Intermediate on Maxwell: This user stands a chance of getting an image. Though would never in a million years connect looking through their SLR and taking a picture with the jumping through of hoops upon hoops that CG imaging has become. A dedicated intermediate with a liking for computers could eventually produce and render decent images, though the connection to photography would be pretty weak in their minds.

-----

Expert Photographer: This person knows what 'f-stop' means and what a 'stop' actually is. Can explain how film works and even talk about all the critical things like Depth of Field. Knows how to mix ambient light with flash.

Expert Photographer on Maxwell: here is where the fun begins. This photographer is used to getting the shot. Imagine his frustration to find that there are so many ways to mess up a render and so many ways to not get the shot. most photographers (myself included) would NEVER mistake rendering software for photography. The primary issue of course is that photography is pretty much instant. And if digital one can get exactly the result required pretty much without bother. Maxwell is more like getting Flash to work properly. Nothing to do with how easy it is to take pictures methinks.

In a nutshell.

the statement, 'as easy as taking a photograph' while in some cases can be true, is misleading. Those who need photographic help will be clueless to actually understand the principles underpinning maxwell, and those who understand will want to have complete control over the maxwell environment to 'get the shot'. So, maxwell seems to be aimed at a very rare person. See below.

Newbie Photographer, expert CG artist.

Problem is, even this newbie photographer knows he wants a zdepth render and multiple pass output and lights, etc. Even if the idea of Depth of Field may be alien (unlikely) integrating the 'maxwell camera' into the other tools that make artists go is essential. Without crosstalk tools for things like AE, photoshop, DFX, etc. Maxwell will remain in it's bubble. The "go to maxwell to make art, come back to everything else to get paid" bubble.

Just one man's opinion.

[dilbert]

yeah, actually everyone has the attitude. "don't care, just get the image I want".

In my own experience in CG and clients I must agree. One client asked me why it took so long, then when I started to give him some of the basic steps he threw up his hands and in an exasperated tone says "I don't care about that stuff!! I guess, just get it done". Yes, he's blunt, but that kind of attitude is pretty common.

Don't you just love clients and their ludicrous deadlines! The funny thing is, if you do actually take the time and give them an image that you are 100% happy with, I've found that most clients will actually notice the difference. The problem is, once you've done that once, the next time they come to you with a project they expect nothing less than perfection again. At which point I usually put my foot down and give them a no BS quote for how long it's going to take. Usually, they moan a little, but you'd be surprised how many "urgent deadlines" will be compromised for a final product that everyone is happy with.

A few months back I read an interesting article on how the author believed that some 3D artists are selling themselves out, and consequently the rest of us, by doing work for clients at less than the market value, or even for free (with the promise of their work being "exposed" to the public). He made some good points. One of the best was that we as 3D artists have a skill that is earned over extensive time and practice, and that skill is worth something. If a client is shopping for an artist to complete a project, and he is confronted with two choices a) hire a 3D artist at the market rate, b) hire an up-and-comer who is willing to work for little or nothing, who's he going to choose?

I think that's why working 3D artists can have such a hard time getting work, because there's always someone willing to do it for cheaper/quicker. However, I think in the log run it's better to give a client a product that you are 100% happy with, because then you know what you produced was worth something. I turned down 2 freelance projects this month as the deadlines were totally unreasonable. I could have given them a sloppy product (and got paid my rate of $70/hr for a crappy product), but that would have turned something I love doing into a "job" churning out trash. Consequently, it turned out well as the very same company came back to me with another project in June with a very resonable deadline, with excellent direction. I think if you let yourself get walked on once, you'll never get the client to do anything on your terms. On the flip side, if you're clear about the quality of your work up front, and the time required to achieve the final result, most clients grow to respect that, and enevitably become stronger business assets.

Just my opinion though.

[ivox3]

yeah. LOL

It's a contradictory statement.

Easy as taking photos.

Newbies: don't find taking pictures at all easy. They buy rangefinder digital cameras and several SD cards and complain about the price of film. Once you explain that you can ERASE the film and start again there is excitement, then immediately anger toward the person who sold them so many SD cards.
Newbies on Maxwell: Kidding right? They can't use a digital camera, there is about a .00001% chance they can get maxwell up and running without somebody sitting right there helping.

----------

Intermediate Photographer: Knows what an SLR is, though couldn't tell you what the acronym stands for. Likes the idea of interchangeable lenses and often can be spotted with the latest fully automatic Canon or Nikon gear. Decent results can be seen in their work, though mostly it's photos of the wife, son and cat in various stages of stupidity.

Intermediate on Maxwell: This user stands a chance of getting an image. Though would never in a million years connect looking through their SLR and taking a picture with the jumping through of hoops upon hoops that CG imaging has become. A dedicated intermediate with a liking for computers could eventually produce and render decent images, though the connection to photography would be pretty weak in their minds.

-----

Expert Photographer: This person knows what 'f-stop' means and what a 'stop' actually is. Can explain how film works and even talk about all the critical things like Depth of Field. Knows how to mix ambient light with flash.

Expert Photographer on Maxwell: here is where the fun begins. This photographer is used to getting the shot. Imagine his frustration to find that there are so many ways to mess up a render and so many ways to not get the shot. most photographers (myself included) would NEVER mistake rendering software for photography. The primary issue of course is that photography is pretty much instant. And if digital one can get exactly the result required pretty much without bother. Maxwell is more like getting Flash to work properly. Nothing to do with how easy it is to take pictures methinks.

In a nutshell.

the statement, 'as easy as taking a photograph' while in some cases can be true, is misleading. Those who need photographic help will be clueless to actually understand the principles underpinning maxwell, and those who understand will want to have complete control over the maxwell environment to 'get the shot'. So, maxwell seems to be aimed at a very rare person. See below.

Newbie Photographer, expert CG artist.

Problem is, even this newbie photographer knows he wants a zdepth render and multiple pass output and lights, etc. Even if the idea of Depth of Field may be alien (unlikely) integrating the 'maxwell camera' into the other tools that make artists go is essential. Without crosstalk tools for things like AE, photoshop, DFX, etc. Maxwell will remain in it's bubble. The "go to maxwell to make art, come back to everything else to get paid" bubble.

Just one man's opinion.

yeah, actually everyone has the attitude. "don't care, just get the image I want".

In my own experience in CG and clients I must agree. One client asked me why it took so long, then when I started to give him some of the basic steps he threw up his hands and in an exasperated tone says "I don't care about that stuff!! I guess, just get it done". Yes, he's blunt, but that kind of attitude is pretty common.

Don't you just love clients and their ludicrous deadlines! The funny thing is, if you do actually take the time and give them an image that you are 100% happy with, I've found that most clients will actually notice the difference. The problem is, once you've done that once, the next time they come to you with a project they expect nothing less than perfection again. At which point I usually put my foot down and give them a no BS quote for how long it's going to take. Usually, they moan a little, but you'd be surprised how many "urgent deadlines" will be compromised for a final product that everyone is happy with.

A few months back I read an interesting article on how the author believed that some 3D artists are selling themselves out, and consequently the rest of us, by doing work for clients at less than the market value, or even for free (with the promise of their work being "exposed" to the public). He made some good points. One of the best was that we as 3D artists have a skill that is earned over extensive time and practice, and that skill is worth something. If a client is shopping for an artist to complete a project, and he is confronted with two choices a) hire a 3D artist at the market rate, b) hire an up-and-comer who is willing to work for little or nothing, who's he going to choose?

I think that's why working 3D artists can have such a hard time getting work, because there's always someone willing to do it for cheaper/quicker. However, I think in the log run it's better to give a client a product that you are 100% happy with, because then you know what you produced was worth something. I turned down 2 freelance projects this month as the deadlines were totally unreasonable. I could have given them a sloppy product (and got paid my rate of $70/hr for a crappy product), but that would have turned something I love doing into a "job" churning out trash. Consequently, it turned out well as the very same company came back to me with another project in June with a very resonable deadline, with excellent direction. I think if you let yourself get walked on once, you'll never get the client to do anything on your terms. On the flip side, if you're clear about the quality of your work up front, and the time required to achieve the final result, most clients grow to respect that, and enevitably become stronger business assets.

Just my opinion though.

@ Ian ..... gospel.

@ dilbert ..... truth.

By the way, ..... we're breaking Nicole's law about separate topics within a given thread.

I'm gonna mosey along now ....

In fact, ......I started a new thread for anyone who wants to take this further .....

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... 563#229563