[wahn]

Hi,

After playing around with the art gallery from the Radiance book ("Chapter 3 - Scene 2 Tutorial" - http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/book/) for a while I feel confident enough to post the first image here ...



Here (http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... highlight=) are some other tests but now it's time to get the images a bit more noise-free and adjust the lighting etc. ...

Cheers,

Jan

[Maximus3D]

Um, well quite nice pic but too dark.. however isn't this the wrong forum to post a rendering from another renderengine in ? it's misplaced in here..

/ Max

[wahn]

Um, well quite nice pic but too dark.. however isn't this the wrong forum to post a rendering from another renderengine in ? it's misplaced in here..

Well, it is rendered with Maxwell but the scene comes from the Radiance book

[Maximus3D]

Aha! heh.. oops sorry. I misunderstood you then as if you were using something else and then comparing the results with that to Maxwell here. I apologize for my sloppy reading this morning. My mistake.

/ Max

[wahn]

[oz42]

I think these look very promising, although I'd improve the exposure by opening up the aperture or reducing the shutter speed.

[jeje]

wahn, do u use radiance too?? i was also looking into this open source program. as i understood in a surface level, both maxwell and radiance are physics based rendering engine, however, the steep learning curve of radiance shot me down after i looked the first page of the radiance guide (its basically a command line program). fianlly i went for maxwell, not only because of its premiere quailty also more importantly its easy to use for me. just want to know some insight of the comparison to the two. thanks v much!

[jeje]

i mean technology wise, whats the pros and cons compare with the two

[Thomas An.]

... talking about comparisons.

Here are some more renderers compared (including Radiance):

http://www.winosi.onlinehome.de/Gallery_t14_19.htm

p.s. I'll post a Maxwell version of the test scene to the Gallery as soon as the Beta is out.

Wow !
The "kray" image took 2min14sec (or was it 2h14m ?) and it is as accurate as the Winosi at 40hours. Interesting.

[Thomas An.]

It says 2min, pretty impressive, but somehow I don't like the look of the KRay renderings.

Yeah, I looked at their gallery afterwards and wasn't too impressed either.

[wahn]

I think these look very promising, although I'd improve the exposure by opening up the aperture or reducing the shutter speed.

I have a couple of other files in the queue to render other perspectives of the same room. But afterwards I hope to play a bit with the exposure or the shutter speed

I hope they add IES support soon