[tanguy]

Lol, one word ! EXCITING !!! but only to read these awesome skud threads !!! lol

Just wait to see out the Wonderfull 1.5 and after test and use in prod, there maybe we will get out our Incredible HUGE and POWERFULL DESTROYER SKUD ! ahahahah

and the video is not so INCREDIBLE...

[Hybaj]

The video actually looks quite horrible. But that's mostly not the fault of the glare feature itself.

I think the only problem with the glare feature is the diffraction. It still looks too fake and is too hard to control to get something that atleast looks like an effect produced by a real lens system.

A fancy name with a TM but it still does not do chromatic aberration.. which is a pitty.

[jo]

Ops!
Obviously there are some limitations...

Ciao, Gio

[Hybaj]

That is not a limitation nor a bug. Simply the intensity of the filament in the reflection is strong enough to also cause a glare in the camera.

[djflod]

lol ... thats all ?? ooooh i´m so exited about such a BIG feature

[Rochr]

Why do you keep adding new features that only very few people ask for, when some of the basic stuff is left unsolved?

Most of this can already be achieved in post, with far more control.
As far as i´m concerned, it´s just another feature i wont use.
I´m more curious to find out if the alpha output has been fixed or not. A precise alpha would be far more useful.

[Mike Scola]

Although this feature is low on my wish list and not as important to me as improvements in speed / performance, I can see some benefit to it.

Most of my work is non-architectural, primarily product design related. In reality, all products exist in context to their environment. That environment sometimes presents optic phenomenon such as glare which in the real world of photography is mitigated by the use of certain lenses, etc. I think anything that NL can do to make MW simulate real world photography is a good thing. After all, I'm not interested in MW processing images that look less real or surreal. There are other applications that do that. What I want are images that the viewer cannot distinguish from reality. So as far as I'm concerned this is a step in the right direction, it’s just that it's a small step for me.

NL, I would like to hear more concerning the performance improvements in 1.5. Better yet, I would love to know when we will actually have the release in our hands!

[djflod]

NL, I would like to hear more concerning the performance improvements in 1.5. Better yet, I would love to know when we will actually have the release in our hands!

I agree to Mike ... otherwise if we're not getting any further informations about the final release, this post and its big "juicy" (sry Maximus) new feature are ridiculous

[-Adrian]

I like the new scattering effect. Looks like it could add realism to my renderings, no matter if it actually resembles a cheap camera or not.

[Hybaj]

Is it me or do people really forget that we already have this feature for ages????

+ Adrian : Again the diffraction is nothing new and it is implemented in Maxwell for ages. And I never really seen an example of a well done diffraction that would put more realism into the picture. It always looked fake. I tried and tried but in the end I had to do two separate layers of the pic without/with diffraction and had to manually adjust it in photoshop. After this the result was really good.

Hope we can extract the glare layer separately to a hdr file in the 1.5!!

[JTB]

I guess I don't have to say I'm not very happy with what I see. I don't use glare because it is not working well (at least till now) and because 95% of my work is daylight exterior renderings.
Anyway, I know that 1.5 will be very useful and a great improvement but the choise of the feature to present today was a big mistake Nicole or anyone else that decides what to show....
Give us something we really need...
I will agree 100% with those who want this kind of features added as a patch, for example you could add this to Maxwell 1.5.5. This way, we will get major updates more often and with some patches we will be able to correct the bugs or improve existing features... This is the way most companies do the updates.

[pluMmet]

In a strange turn of events I like this feature. I also like Mihai's image using it. Not that I don't like Mihai's images in general, there nice but I like his use of this feature allot.

If they want to keep giving me features that's nice. As long as I don't have to pay for what I was already told I would have. It's frustrating to wait sooo long.

While we are at nice little features I'd like some kind of tone mapping feature that lets me choose an Alpha tone map

_________________

As far as this quote LMAO

It is ironic that the very thing that I, as a professional photographer, strive to eliminate has become part of the feature set of so many renderers. I recognize that subtle bloom and flare can contribute to a sense of "reality"... but I would hardly consider it a key feature.

My cameras don't use cheap optics, I use lens hoods, I gobo my lens... my pictures are not characterized my flare and bloom.

It is nice to know that I can make renders look like photos made with poorly handled, crappy cameras.

How about a maxwell camera using cheap plastic, asymmetric lenses (like a Diana camera)...

Perhaps a random abberation feature so that you never know what kind of picture you'll get when the render is done?

[lebbeus]

thank you, Nicole, for giving us more information on the upcoming features.

[Maximus3D]

Btw, i really don't think it's that clever to trash any software no matter who makes it when we yet don't know all the features it will have. Because we still don't know all the features 1.5 will have so trashing it now and saying that it sucks is plain stupid. You guys gotta be smarter than that.

/ Max

[def4d]

hopefully we'll have :

- SimuBake(TM)
- SimuDisplace(TM)
- SimuAllWishes(TM)

i trust in NL