[RonB]

I am not trying to be difficult, just asking a question. It seems obvious looking at posted images and comparing them, that the images from the Beta engine are superior in quality to the images produced by V1.0...they have a defining clarity that the V1.0 images lack. I am sure I can say that it was that clarity that brought most of us to Maxwell.

I am inviting anyone from the 'A' Team or management to address this question and talk about it some. Is my perception off here or can that same image quality be gotten from V1.0?

Thanks much,
Ron

[misterasset]

I usually stay out of these arguments, but I think people need to just work harder at it (myself included). Here's a scene done in Beta and then redone in V1.0. Can you tell which is which?





And yes, some of you will guess correctly, but to me they are the exact same (aside from the poor downsizing quality on the first one).

-EDIT- After Michael posted I want to make it clear that the "unusual noise in the red die" is from downsizing. I don't have the same editing software here at home that I do at work.

[michaelplogue]

Well, there's a big difference in the DOF and lighting between the two images. The artistic side of me much prefers the first one though - despite the unusual noise in the red die.

[Kabe]

It is really hard to compare two images that have such a difference in bokeh.

However, the bokeh in the upper image seems to be much better, and this hopefully points out that it is an V1.0 image.

You'll have to admit, that this is not the kind of scene where the beta results seem to be better than 1.0. I find it still quite interesting that beta produced a lot of top gallery picts, while 1.0 doesn't. Would be great to have that kind of magic back in 1.1.

Kabe

[hyltom]

I also prefer the first one. The red dice looks better.

[ivox3]

Bah ! I myself would prefer to see the same scene done with the superior quality of the RC2 engine, .....now that remains unparalelled in quality.

[samsam]

misterasset - I can't tell in this particular instance, but often it is obvious.
Frequently V1 renders come across with a kind of harshness / over saturation that gives them a vaguely illustrated quality similar in someways to vray renderings.

Obviously not everyone can see this difference but there are enough people who frequent these forums who can see the difference to reassure me that there is a substantial difference between the two renderers - just not in the examples you've posted.

It may be that the new materials wizard will help close the gap - I really hope so.

[misterasset]

Stop changing your avatars (I'm looking at you ivox3)! I've learned who you people are by sight.

The first one is V1.0, the second is Beta. The differance in the lighting comes from the fact that I hadn't taken the time (point in case here) to learn the material editor well enough and my lighting wasn't the same. But everything else is dead on (minus DOF, that was an artistic change).

And as samsam said, in this particular instance it's not obvious. So I think that if people would try harder, in their particular instance they could get the same quality out. Also realize, alot of the people who cranked out those first images aren't around anymore. No more Swerk, no more Whiskey, no more Micha. These are names all of us knew that aren't here anymore (I was going to point to Thomas An. but he came back).

I'm not trying to instigate a fight or anything, I just see the potential there and people should jump on it instead of just complaining about it. Those are my two cents. Now I'm not like most of the people and don't check the forum every half hour, so if you want to show me that I'm wrong and I don't respond right away, give me time, I'll be back.

[Kabe]

Uff, glad I git that right with the bokeh

Kabe

[chrisvconley]

I would argue that the basis of the idea that Beta is better than V1 is because it was REALLY EASY to get great results with Beta.

Now, with the more flexible material system we have to work harder. I can say that I am achieving way better results now that I better understand the system, but it is a learning curve.

That is not something customers ever like even though it seems a necessary step in the evolution of Maxwell. Mihai has repeatedly stated that they are trying to get the ease of results back that Beta so elegantly provided.

[uki]

I was betting the first one is beta, as I usually prefer the quality of the beta rendering. It always had something more handmade to it, just like a photograph with an old camera... I found the V.1 in my tests too synthetic, too much like many other render-engines so far.

[Maxer]

V1 is obviously harder to understand and use which is why you don't see near the number of good images made with it. I don't think it's a hard concept to understand, you give people a simple easy way to create nice images then take it away and replace it with a difficult one and there going to want the old easy way back. I'll admit it, I want it to be easy, that's partially what drew me to Maxwell in the first place and it's desperately needed now.

I did think the first image was created with the beta, but if you’re going to do comparisons don't use simple scenes like this with small scales. Make a comparison using what is most difficult for Maxwell, interior scenes. I shouldn’t have to point out that making dice look good is a lot easier than making a room look real. You also need to keep track of how long the setup for each scene takes, if the beta scene took 1 hour and the V1 took 10 then even if it’s as good as the beta your still going to loose.

[misterasset]

The Beta scene wasn't any faster to set up than the V1.0 scene. For the V1.0 all I did was use the material wizard and re-created the materials for what they were, it's pretty intuitive actually.

Diffuse creates 1-BSDF with a 90 degree roughness. Apply your diffuse map and bump map and you're done.

Plastic creates 2-BSDF layers, one lambertian (Tom and Mike seem to be at odds on whether or not this should ever be used) and one that's shiny. I think it's pretty obvious which is the diffuse and specular layers. Apply diffuse map, specular map, bump map and you're done.

Metal creates the actual metal. You're done.

Emitters take a little work, granted, but it's not hard.

Honestly, what is the big deal? If you liked the Beta materials, use the wizard and just a wee bit of brian power and it works.

Yes, these materials are pretty simplistic compared to what the material editor can now do, but in the grand scheme the Beta materials were pretty simplistic themselves. You're getting exactly what they are.

See what's happening, I'm being drawn into an argument over this. I don't want to become one of those people (and I didn't try to steal your thread RonB), but how many times has this question been asked? How many times have both sides given their answer? How many times have both sides called the other side's answer wrong? No matter what they say it's going to keep going.

And I would do a better comparison of gigantic entry great room if I could, but I never made one in Beta, I was still learning. If anybody wants to furnish me with a copy of Beta, the scene files, all the materials, I'll gladly take a crack at recreating the scene and rendering both and post times, sampling levels, all that fun stuff. I'm not trying to aggravate the argument, but I am willing to help settle it.

[Maxer]

Obviously the V1 materials aren't as easy to create as you think they are or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I understand the Wizard and how it works; I've made materials both with and without it. The problem seems to be how it translates the materials, they aren't exact replicas of the beta system or we would have exactly the same results as the beta when using them. Your dice test scene proved this, if the materials being created by the wizard were the same as the beta then you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two.

[Xlars]

I usually stay out of these arguments, but I think people need to just work harder at it (myself included). Here's a scene done in Beta and then redone in V1.0. Can you tell which is which?





And yes, some of you will guess correctly, but to me they are the exact same (aside from the poor downsizing quality on the first one).

-EDIT- After Michael posted I want to make it clear that the "unusual noise in the red die" is from downsizing. I don't have the same editing software here at home that I do at work.

First one is really beautiful, and the most realistic imo. But these two pictures seem different in lighting, dof etc. Which one is actually the Beta and which one is the V1 render?

Anyway, I also must say that most renders I have seen so far with V1 do lack something compared to beta renders. It might be right that it is due to not knowing the material system good enough etc., but even the best people around seem to have problems reaching that "wow that must be a photo" effect in their V1 renders. I do hope this is not due to fundamental changes and optimizations in the render-engine. Also I hope that somehow it will all get as easy as it was in the beta days to create a reasonable good render and I am really looking forward to coming improvements in Maxwell Render.