[rivoli]

Your comments don't make any since to me.

in a nutshell, what I was trying to say, and I'm sorry if I hadn't make any sense so far, is:
I wasn't trying by any means to dissuade you from using maxwell, nor I was trying to suggest any better renderer as I wasn't questioning maxwell capabilities (of which I'm well aware). what I meant is that given the thight deadline and the fact that you very likely had to rush in doing this scene, the result you're getting doesn't show anything I like maxwell for.

if I were you, and this is just what I would do, and didn't have enough time to work on materials, and didn't have enough time for modelling/detailing, and didn't have enough time to render out 4 minutes at 10 hours per frame, I'd just switch to something else than maxwell.

but anyway, others have already made the point I was trying to make much better than me, sure saying "dump this renderer and get yourself another one" is not very brilliant a comment. and sure is not that constructive either, for this I apologize.

what big k has just said makes much more sense.

[Maxer]

I understand what you guys are saying, let me ask you then what kind of schedule do you think is reasonable for using Maxwell for animation, or what kind of project? I think we can all agree that Maxwell isn't going to get much faster than it is now, and the prospect of 6-10 hours per frame seems to be more than most people are willing to deal with. So does that mean that Maxwell simply shouldn’t be used for animation unless you have a project with an unlimited deadline?

[big K]

maxer, i think you did not understand what i tried to say.
i think the rendertimes are huge, but they are not going to take any longer if you first built up the scene nicely for a still image and then do the animation.
as i said if the atmosphere and the overall image looks alright i think the animation (especially in maxwell) will look good, too.
take this interior from tora_2097 as example (i know this is outstanding - but just to let you understand what i mean). if this is rendered as an animation i am sure the animation would be outstanding as well. (and the rendertimes wouldn´t be much longer then yours i think)
so the point is, why people are not falling on the knees because of your animation is, that the whole scenery lacks some quality (lighting, materials, maybe details). nobody would have said whoa, if you had posted a single frame of this scene as a still interior. so it isn´t about the animation (and not even about animation in maxwell in general) it is about the scene setup.
what the other guys maybe meant was, if you are happy with this quality (and this is for sure nothing against you and your work - i have seen fantastic stuff from you) then you might have done it faster with a different renderengine, where you are able to reach this quality faster.

uups that was long. i hope you get the point this time.

cheers
michael

[3dgeek]

Using Maxwell for animations has never been an option for me... I have never had a deadline that would allow for the kind of time Maxwell animations would take. Even on a renderfarm. I use Maxwell for still images exclusively, as I suspect most people do.

Next limit themselves say this in their slogan, "as easy as taking a picture" - Not "as easy as shooting some film" - even they recognize that animation is not the primary function of this render engine.

I would say you would have to have one heck of a farm to realistically do any Maxwellian animations... and even then I think you might be tempted to use something else with that kind of a farm.

Unfortunately I don't really see this changing anytime soon either as the entire philosophy of Maxwell makes animation very difficult.

Sorry, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse... I have just never been able to do any production animations with Maxwell... but I have done allot of still renders that knock the socks off of my clients.

[Maxer]

maxer, i think you did not understand what i tried to say.
i think the rendertimes are huge, but they are not going to take any longer if you first built up the scene nicely for a still image and then do the animation.
as i said if the atmosphere and the overall image looks alright i think the animation (especially in maxwell) will look good, too.

This is a fundamental misconception that I want to address; there is a huge difference between a still image that can go through a lot of post processing and an animation. With a still image you are able to craft the scene to achieve optimal lighting and material usage, since the scene never changes it's much easier to get all of those things working. If your scene needs fill lighting it can be easily put in with out having to think about what those lights are going to do to the rest of the space. What happens when your camera needs to make a 180 degree spin? In Maxwell there is also a problem with noise as most of you know and during an animation as the scene changes so does the noise. In frame 5 a SL16 might clear the noise but in frame 250 as you pass by a glass bowl and some brushed stainless steel the SL16 setting will not clear all of the noise any longer and a setting of SL18 might be necessary. The obvious problem is that there is no automatic SL function and it's not possible to vary it during an animation unless it is done frame by frame.

So my point is that comparing an animation to a still image is really like comparing apples to oranges, it's far easier to do a still image.

[big K]

o.k. you are right it is not the same thing.
but this is not what i said. in your example i think the still image wouldn´t look very good. so if it is easier to make a good still then with your example you haven´t even succeded in the "easier" task. (hey this sounds harsh - this is not my intension - we are only talking about this only one animation here, right) as far as i know tora_2097 doesn´t do any postproduction other than some noise reduction (which isn´t so important in a moving picture). i am sure that an animation of this scene would be fantastic. and if some cameraturning about 180 degrees show some dark areas, than add a fill light, of course. this is how filmstudio setups are done. and be sure the stills of those filmscenes normally look good, too.
to sum it up. of course an animation is far more complex than a still. but in your case i think the animation is not so good because the scene still lacks proper lighting, materials and maybe some details. if all these are added properly i think it will look nice.
and i understand that doing animation in maxwell isn´t the simpliest task and very timeconsuming. (especially the rendertime) so i am really thankful for you doing some animation examples here.

[andrebaros]

I see the point about a "better" solution for the task at hand. But I am also spoiled by the easy lighting setup in Maxwell. So I wanted to throw out another solution for the animation. Render a single huge panoramic in Maxwell, all the bells and whistles, and then add your panning action in post... After Effects or whatever. Simple and effective, and if add some zooming as you pan, you can create the effect of turning your head. This way you have the extra time to tweek materials instead of waiting for renderings of frames you may have had to compromise on to get the render times down.

This may not work for everything your doing, but even if it just takes care of your interiors, it still saves you a lot of time.

Also, you may be able to cut your sampling levels way down. I don't have Combustion and the same trick doesn't work in After Effects but Daros (I think) posted a tip a while back that when you combine multiple frames of an animation in Combusion it interpolates to clean up the final frames and you get the equivelent of almost double the sampling level. I would try to find that post.