[TOXE]

Joris, forgot to say that your render is amazing!

Maybe i need to add some tickness to my object...

-TOXE

[tom]

but those withe refractions in the plastic are really difficult to create.

You know that's the role of environment. For creating realistic images you should avoid faking environments by tweaking your materials. Well, just a suggestion.

[JorisMX]

TOXE, thank you!

Tom:

Yes, that is specifically the point I'm at now. Setting up the Environment for nice Reflections.
I tend to see nice reflections on renderings with glossy materials, like graphic-like shiny edges and smooth gradient reflections.
However, I never seem to get them the way I want to.
I have downloaded the Studio HDR set that was floating around the forums a few weeks ago,
trying out these and other HDRs such as Dosch and whatnot...
I tried rotating them and playing with the intensity, still no luck

I'd probably need to setup a few planes with mxi-emitters assigned to them utilizing a gradient texture.


Any good tips?

Oh and I tried the single layer SSS Sillicone you suggested, tom. Its all Opaque and not transparent.
The coefficient values are already low on the material. Is there an other way to get it more transparent apart from weighting it with a second "clear plastic" layer?
I have used and played with Hytoms wonderfull design mxm collection, but most of the time I tend to redo them, due to low Benchmark results.
These non SSS mxms render like 10 times as fast and also with LESS NOISE.

Since I'm rendering for Print I always need Hi-res output.

[tom]

If that's coming out fully opaque, it means your scale is not correct or there's another problem. What's the size of your object? Are you sure you modeled the scene in real size?

This is a quick example:


Btw, you can change the look of Silicone Gel by increasing or decreasing the coefficients. E.g. decreasing the scattering will make it more transparent. Decreasing the Nd (down to 1.2 or so) will make it less reflective and refractive. Additionally you can add more roughness etc.

But, in the end it will take a lot of time to render comparing to other setups.

[JorisMX]

In C4D I model in meters and then convert to Maxwell with a scale multiplicator of 0.01
Which turns a 5 meter showergel-top into a 5 centimeter one.

Or am I getting something awfully wrong here?

[TOXE]

Tom, thanks for your explanation of SSS, i've put my hand on maxwell after some months and it's very useful talking with you. About studio setup and lighting, you're right again, i need a virtual studio as much real as possible. If you can point me to some interesting discussion about it i'll be glad8)

Thanks

-TOXE

[TOXE]

I've found an old kìlink in my bookmarks, very useful...

http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/ ... index.html

-TOXE

[tom]

JorisMX, the size sounds correct but I don't know why it looks fully opaque. If your showergel top is 5 cm, it means it has about 2mm shell thickness and this should end up remarkably transparent but...

Toxe, there are a lot of things to know about lighting. Studio lighting has many different techniques, too. Depending on purpose, I mean. So, it's not easy to summarize these all but according to our tests we're sure that if you prepare the matching conditions in real life, your render will come as expected.

[mashium123]

In C4D I model in meters and then convert to Maxwell with a scale multiplicator of 0.01
Which turns a 5 meter showergel-top into a 5 centimeter one.

Or am I getting something awfully wrong here?

Are you using the new plug-in, released today, Jan. 14th. ?
In this release (1.8.1.1) the multiplicator needs to be set to 1.
So, when you create a box in cinema, 10cm wide, you need to set "1" as multiplicator to let this box have w width of 10cm when opened in mx studio.

This is for fresh scenes generated from scratch. Have a look at the release notes, if you haven't done so already.

In general, it's never too bad to have a quick look at the real scale of your scene (seen by mx renderer, that is) by opening it in studio... just once... for the check ...

[TOXE]

Toxe, there are a lot of things to know about lighting. Studio lighting has many different techniques, too. Depending on purpose, I mean. So, it's not easy to summarize these all but according to our tests we're sure that if you prepare the matching conditions in real life, your render will come as expected.

Thanks Tom, yes i'm sure. I'm also a photographer since long time, but i've never created conditions for studio shoots, because when i need this kind of photographs i ask a photographer that have a studio, i like to search in nature for the light that i need. So i don't know enough about studio equipment...

I'll be glad if you take a look at my gallery on Flickr!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29379021@N00/?saved=1

Thanks

-TOXE

[tom]

Very nice photos, Toxe!

[JorisMX]

In C4D I model in meters and then convert to Maxwell with a scale multiplicator of 0.01
Which turns a 5 meter showergel-top into a 5 centimeter one.

Or am I getting something awfully wrong here?

Are you using the new plug-in, released today, Jan. 14th. ?
In this release (1.8.1.1) the multiplicator needs to be set to 1.
So, when you create a box in cinema, 10cm wide, you need to set "1" as multiplicator to let this box have w width of 10cm when opened in mx studio.

This is for fresh scenes generated from scratch. Have a look at the release notes, if you haven't done so already.

In general, it's never too bad to have a quick look at the real scale of your scene (seen by mx renderer, that is) by opening it in studio... just once... for the check ...

Hey Mashium,

Nope, I'm still using the last one. 1.71 or 1.7f or something I believe it's called.
Thanks for pointing it out though, I hadn't heard about it up until your post. : )

I didn't really get all the bugfixes, do we finally have multichannel texturing now?

[mashium123]

Hey Mashium,

Nope, I'm still using the last one. 1.71 or 1.7f or something I believe it's called.
Thanks for pointing it out though, I hadn't heard about it up until your post. : )

I didn't really get all the bugfixes, do we finally have multichannel texturing now?

I'd really recommend the new release.
JDHill did a great job, once again.

I still freak out playng around with mograph and the instance-object (which we have now...), billions, trillians, gazillions of "polygons" now possible right out of cinema.

I'm not sure, what you mean by multichannel texturing. Still, I say yes, we can.
(I guess, it's texturing via selection tags that you meant... which is possible now...)

[lllab]

yep , het the new plugin i also recommend it. is like notime before thanks to JD:-)
cheers
stefan

[JorisMX]

I meant being able to have multiple UV Projector channels per material for fast mapping instead of UVW with Bodypaint.

Right now I'm setting up one UV with the main texture and adding the same size textures in other layers to avoid more than one channel.

Perhaps my workflow is a little twisted