[glypticmax]

Thus my dream of Maxwell allowing for "include/exclude" with regard to materials and lighting.

Yeah, I knew you would say that.
Though I would never use such function.

You "knew"? I could have guessed. I have always thought you were telepathic.

And for what its worth I'll never touch Z Clip, although I'm glad the people that can make money from it, or save time with it, have it.
And I would hope for the same consideration from people that might not have to wrestle with creating renderings with interesting metals combined with interesting gems.
It's all about making your tools efficient, profitable and fun.

[Thomas An.]

Well I do make gem renderings from time to time for clients (not as many as you) ... but I doubt the feature you suggested is necessary for "interesting" metals with interesting gems. Of course now it all hinges on the word "interesting" and since beauty can be in the eye of the beholder, it poses an interesting complication.

-T

[glypticmax]

Thomas, you are very generous to comment on such issues in your Gallery thread. I don't want to pollute it with too many *feature* posts.
So I'll end with this, and if it warrants more comment, we can start another subject specific thread.
When I spend days working on a displacement map, and I know how I want the metal to look for a presentation, I can find it frustrating that the best lighting set up for the stones in the pieces does not do it justice. And the lighting that makes the metal sing, leaves the gems lacking. The qualities of those two materials (gems and metals) are so different, it should be easy to understand how such things happen. Its a reflection of reality, not a weakness in Maxwell.
Allowing for *include/exclude* would be for convenience sake. Read saving time and effort. A desireable virtue of any tool. PS offers a work around. As do complex lighting options. Gobo's, micro spots, custom HDRI, etc, etc.
Include/Exclude would make it very easy and all contained in Maxwell. Which would be a plus for my workflow.
I don't sell renders, I use them to sell *stuff*. I make money on the delivery of the *stuff*. So any time saved creating an image to make a sale is a good thing. I think nearly all jewelers are in a similar situation.
The idea that Maxwell is purely about a *camera shot* is getting more fuzzy for me, as new features are added. I favor more features as it makes the product more viable in the market place. And I want Maxwell to thrive. I would dread switching render engines. So if they need to add some tools that are useless to me, I'm cool with that. Every soft I use had zillions of options I don't touch. I just want them to stay in business.
And give efficient options. And my little pet wish is include/exclude.
Geez, forgive the babble.
I look forward to seeing more of your incredible renders. They are pure eye candy.
I'll repeat, you are very generous for responding to this diversion in your Gallery.

[Thomas An.]

Well you do not really have to convince me on the merits of a feature since I am not really a decision maker on what goes into Maxwell and what not. There are present features that are very useful to many people that I disagree as well.

Yes, I would rather use gobos and physical means than to invoke the paranormal for the shake of convenience. It is the physical simulation aspect that attracted me to Maxwell in the first place. Also, I would be careful selling something that is illuminated using paranormal means, because you run the danger of entering the surreal and misrepresenting the object, basically selling something that may look good to you (or the client), but can never look like so in reality. I see my wife being into the beading business. She will send the merchandising back in a hurry if she opens the package and the beads are of slightly different color than the photo (even by an iota). She has invested on expensive natural lighting full spectrum bulbs just for that. It is important to buy the exact color, texture, look, advertised.

[Thomas An.]

It has been a while.
Here is one more for this gallery.

[macray]

what is this? (I mean the picture looks interesting but I don't recognize this thing.)

What modelling tool do you use?

[tom]

Very nice one Thomas. I'd ask the same question with macray...
Macray, he uses Rhinoceros for modeling.

[Hervé]

very cool render ! but what is........? hair dryer for twins..?

[simmsimaging]

Nice render Thomas.

b

[Bubbaloo]

Very nice!
What is it?

[JDHill]

Great lighting!

[Maximus3D]

Good stuff Thomas it kinda looks like a hightech backrubber for reindeers.

Those big things rotate and gently rub the back of tired reindeers after a long day pulling heavy logs in the snowcovered forests of Lapland

But seriously now, it's perhaps a little bit dark. It wouldn't hurt if it would be a little bit brighter to separate it more from the dark background. The modeling and materials are however topclass as always.

/ Max

[lebbeus]

is it a little robot of some sort??

[hyltom]

Like everyone here i have no idea of the function of this stuff...can you give us some hint.

About the rendering, i' m sorry to tell you that it doesn't look like a maxwell rendering to me. Fist of all, it's little bit too dark, then there is some problem with the textured plastic. The matte part in the middle looks also strange to me. Finally, the LED are weird...actually, i think i have some problem with all the different material. Sorry to be so negative, but we all know you can do much better than that.

My good point will go to the design...i think it's pretty cool.

[Bubbaloo]

I think it is the lighting (or lack of) that is making this look less "real" than it could.