[Rochr]

Sorry Stefan, but the camera attached with the plugin only seem to be working with default or standard proportions, and that´s something i don´t use.
I did a quick test render here, and as soon as the proportions were changed, the output was way off again.



This has nothing to do with workflow, but a flaw in Cinemaxwells camera translation, and unfortunatly that pre-made camera scene is only a workaround, not a proper fix to the problem.

never ever change any value in the cinema camera, only use the normal camera tag or for your convinience the one decribed above.

Well, the Cinema camera for me is the normal camera. I must change the viewport in Cinema in order to work with a scene, and it´s also necessary to decrease focal length in my cameras, or i can´t render out the views i need.

Thanks for trying to help out though Stefan, i really appreciate it.
But i think it´s up to NL to fix these issues now. This plugin is supposed to be a finished product, yet what we have here is a Beta at best.
If they can´t do that, than Maxwell is of no practical use to me, other than for playing.

I´m sick and tired of having to waste valuable time on complete BS-issues such as a camera setup or similar. I have far better things to do.

[beppeg]

Hi Rochr, in your opinion, why there are the film width and height parameters in the options panel of the cinemaxwell camera tag

[Rochr]

Hi Rochr, in your opinion, why there are the film width and height parameters in the options panel of the cinemaxwell camera tag

Probably to set the size, but i wouldn´t know, i´m not a photographer and never will be.
And if i have to calculate the width and height every time i need exact pixel proportions, it´s more waste of time and yet another reason for me not to use Maxwell.

[big K]

yep, sometimes these ultra complex calculations are really too hard...
maybe you really shouldn´t use maxwell.

and sometimes, but really only sometimes it seems that it is no bug but a user who made a mistake.
so in your job, have you never had the situation where you got a fixed print size for an image and you had to calculate the pixels and the aspect ratio ?

i know it is far more easy to shout out loudly that this is all crap and so on and there are still many issues, but it is always a good thing to keep on thinking

michael

[arch4d]

yep, sometimes these ultra complex calculations are really too hard...
maybe you really shouldn´t use maxwell.

and sometimes, but really only sometimes it seems that it is no bug but a user who made a mistake.
so in your job, have you never had the situation where you got a fixed print size for an image and you had to calculate the pixels and the aspect ratio ?

i know it is far more easy to shout out loudly that this is all crap and so on and there are still many issues, but it is always a good thing to keep on thinking

michael

so, if you know how to solve this camera issue, please feel free to explain...
we have got the same problem that our cinema 4d camera is NEVER translated correctly into studio.

so, please! enlighten us !

i would also expect from a final version plugin to translate the settings made in the c4d cam exactly into a maxwell cam.
i don´t mind thinking about it, i´m not lazy, but is definitley an issue to be solved by NL, not by us Users.

anyway, this is not a workflow i expect from a final version...
please fix this !!!

[lllab]

Hi rochr,

i never use standard proportions,

you can render ANY format you want with it. there is a proportion setup,
again you seem to misunderstand the functions.

i suggest you explore the things & the manuals a bit more....

cheers
stefan

ps. and you dont have to calculte anything. if you want to have 2.25:1, just type in 2.25 in the cameratag settings...very easy

[Rochr]

yep, sometimes these ultra complex calculations are really too hard...
maybe you really shouldn´t use maxwell.

It´s not about complexity, but time consumption.

and sometimes, but really only sometimes it seems that it is no bug but a user who made a mistake.

Agreed. I admit i´ve previously made a mistake at one point, and ranted about it. I also don´t mind apologizing for being dead wrong, so i did.

so in your job, have you never had the situation where you got a fixed print size for an image and you had to calculate the pixels and the aspect ratio ?

Honestly, no.

i know it is far more easy to shout out loudly that this is all crap and so on and there are still many issues, but it is always a good thing to keep on thinking

Agreed, but it´s just as easy to blame everything on the users, instead of fixing the flaws that are obviously there. Since there´s an extra scene file for the camera setup, it´s already a confirmed error. The scene file is just a quick fix that has obviously been made permanent, instead of a proper correction of the software. After all, it´s supposed to be finished.

And i think you miss my point.
If i buy a software, its purpose is to cut workflow so that i can work faster. I don´t doubt i could get Maxwell to work here, with workarounds, special scene files or whatever it may be, but problem is that it´s a far slower process than working with Cinema.
The screwed camera proportions is not a big deal, i can live with cropping the images, but the "sometimes-functional" camera and tripple tagging in 1.1 is just a waste of time.

And you´re right. I don´t use Maxwell 1.1, and don´t plan to unless it´s updated to the better. If i want to use Maxwell for some personal playing, i use 1.0 instead. I only need the physical sunlight and some flat shaded diffuse tags anyway. I paint the textures instead, it´s a quicker process.

Hi rochr,

i never use standard proportions,

you can render ANY format you want with it. there is a proportion setup,
again you seem to misunderstand the functions.

i suggest you explore the things & the manuals a bit more....

cheers
stefan

ps. and you dont have to calculte anything. if you want to have 2.25:1, just type in 2.25 in the cameratag settings...very easy

Thanks Stefan.
I´ll make a last attempt with this later on and see if i can make it work.
Still doesn´t change the rest about workflow though.

[Rochr]

Btw.

Some of you probably think of me as a real pita, which is perfectly fine, we all have our opinions.

But i also think most of you have been here long enough to remember that the only times we´ve ever recieved updates for this plugin, is when enough people have been bitchin about the flaws.
Personally i prefer to speak up now than later when it´s to late.

[spekoun]

Yes Cinemaxwell is almost finished product. But problem is, that it is comletely wrongly designed from beginnig. Cinamxwell simply kills Cinemas workflow and flexibility. I can live with it and I changed my work in Cinema just because of Cinemaxwell. But WHY should we change good things.

I repeat this in every post, whitch is pointing on bad cinemas plugin. I hope NL hear our voices and will change the plugin.

P.S. I have no problem with camera export. But i also can see, that it is not exactly right...

[Rochr]

Yes Cinemaxwell is almost finished product. But problem is, that it is comletely wrongly designed from beginnig. Cinamxwell simply kills Cinemas workflow and flexibility. I can live with it and I changed my work in Cinema just because of Cinemaxwell. But WHY should we change good things.

Exactly.
The difference between us is that i don´t plan to alter my workflow completely because of a renderer. If you already have built up an excellent workflow, where you work and finish projects very quickly without compromizing quality, you do not want to change that.
You should be able to fit the renderer to your workflow, not having to alter every part of it. If that´s not possible, than the renderer can be replaced with one that will allow you to do so.

[lllab]

"that i don´t plan to alter my workflow completely because of a renderer"

...well then you will have to stick with AR forever"

i know all major renderenines out there and each forces you to have a different setup in workflow. some more some less.

maxwell is harmless in this regard i must say...

- i agree with you that there are still some bugs and also major workflow drawbacks in the last version, i just think i have to say it that in this special
case it is not maxwells fault.

cheers
stefan

[beppeg]

I look at the problem from another point. As I like to choose ISO, shutter speed and aperture in my render, I also like to choose the size of the film of my camera
It's not a workflow problem but a simulation attitude

[Rochr]

...well then you will have to stick with AR forever"

I guess you´re right there. But that´s ok.
AR works like a charm and knowing Maxon, it´s only a matter of time before AR have physical sunlight so i´ll manage.

I also need to point out that i perfectly understand that you have to adapt certain things for certain software, which i really don´t mind, but not to the extent that´s required by Maxwell.

[lllab]

well sorry to hear that maxwell is to complicated in your eyes..

for me personally i never had a new renderengine that felt so easy to learn and adapt to, but this might is personal experience.

i am also of the opinion that the cinemmaxwell plugin has to rethink some VERY imortant things, in my eyes especially the new need to manually drag each texture into texture slot of the mw tag. this completly ruins the nice thing that MW "automaticly steals" as they said, the texture info from cinema.


now it is a mess of a workflow, which makes me very sad. i hope tyron realized it and also juan and miguel.

from the rest i think it is developing in a way where there are very few bugs left, but now it is time to work on features and workflow...

cheers
stefan

[big K]

hey Rochr,

i want to apologize. i think i was a bit harsh.
it is only because in my opinion the whole communication atmosphere is still not good (after the big RC clash)
and i don´t agree that nagging long enough will lead to better cinemaxwell results. (and i have been here long enough to follow the whole process)
it is a good thing to criticize - even heavily. but always strike the right note.
and compared with internal relationships in an office for example - if the atmosphere is good it is good for the productivity as well.
(this has to be improved maybe from both sides - agreed)
so there have been mistakes and i think the workflow could be optimized, but in my eyes constructive criticism is the way to go. and always be fair. i think NL has done a lot, not always in their estimated time (and o.k. the cinema plugin maybe did not get the proper attention). but their way to go now is working in the background and release the things when they are ready without big announcements, which is fine.

uuups now this got a little longer then intended, but i hope you get the message.

cheers mate
michael