Fryrender demo is up!

Discuss stuff not about Indigo.
Post Reply
144 posts
User avatar
CTZn
Posts: 7240
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by CTZn » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:19 am

:twisted: hehe :P

Yeah but the point would be to demonstrate your arguments, for example by making images looking the very same and comparing then their respective material settings with phisical data, and see how dramatic the shift is.

Of course tonemapping must be left alone (same for all) and maybe use the most accurate of the three shown here, Indigo you said, as a reference by inputting real world data. Obviously using nk data is excluded.

woot I wrote all that with the medium, and using the thumb for white spaces :lol: OT :roll:

BTW mr (minuscules = mental ray) uses that way for energy conservation.
Last edited by CTZn on Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
obsolete asset

User avatar
Whaat
Developer
Posts: 1824
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Whaat » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:24 am

patricks wrote: i will say it in a different way "Indigo , Kerkythea and Radium are doing it correct ....... the other commercial unbiased render engines that where mentioned in this threat , i am not convinced that they do it correct because of the way they handle layered weight materials :wink: "
I was very suspicious of this when I tried out the Maxwell demo. The way that the plastic material is modeled (layered) did not make sense to me.
The way I understand it, is that the Maxwell and Fryrender plastic materials are equivalent to an Indigo material that is a blend between a diffuse material and a non-transparent Specular material with IOR of 3.
Blend factor would be 0.8 (80% diffuse).

AFAIK in Kerkythea, this would be equivalent to a layered material with 80% diffuse and 20% Dielectric. Of course in Kerkythea, you can use the Fresnel ramp to set the material weights so that Fresnel reflection is taken into account.

What I don't get is why the Maxwell and Fryrender plastic materials appear to render slower in the above tests. You would think that they would render faster IF they are indeed neflecting the Fresnel effect.

BTW, patricks, you should post the link to your Kerkythea material guide that explains the differences between how to set up plastic materials. It is very imformative!

Whaat

User avatar
patricks
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:45 am

Post by patricks » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:35 am

What I don't get is why the Maxwell and Fryrender plastic materials appear to render slower in the above tests. You would think that they would render faster IF they are indeed neflecting the Fresnel effect.
the thing is that they are rendering the Fresnel effect but with a 20% contribution only ( in the case of the basic plastic material ) and this is a "wrong" way of calculating Fresnel reflection .....

on a smooth plastic surface with a IOR = 1.5 the Fresnel reflection would be 100% reflective at 90 degree viewing angle and only 5 or 10% reflective at 0 degree viewing angle ( 0 degree reflectance % is more or less because i don't have the data with me )

Greetings Patrick ( if sombody is interested he can download the Kerkythea Material Editor Guide at the Kerkythea download section :wink: )

User avatar
CTZn
Posts: 7240
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:34 pm
Location: Paris, France

Post by CTZn » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:51 am

Well, that would dramatically reduce the number of competitors for Indigo :D

(Devilish) Job is done ! :wink:
obsolete asset

User avatar
zsouthboy
Posts: 1395
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:12 am

Post by zsouthboy » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:52 am

...

I don't understand why the "layered" approach doesn't simply set a % that the material will return a specular result, diffuse result, scatter, etc.

It makes more sense to me, in my head at least.

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:39 pm

as far as the blurriness goes, I wish you had a choice....

I mean most renderers you different types of filters to get the look you want when you want it.

If your paying, then you should be able to choose how your render looks IMO

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:49 pm

a bit off topic - but here is the info about the difference in digital camera sensors to explain the blurriness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
The operation of the Foveon X3 sensor is quite different from that of the Bayer filter image sensor more commonly used in digital cameras. In the Bayer sensor, each photosite in the array consists of a single light sensor (either CMOS or CCD) that, as a result of filtration, is exposed to only one of the three primary colors, red, green, or blue. Constructing a full color image from a Bayer sensor requires demosaicing, an interpolative process in which the output pixel associated with each photosite is assigned an RGB value based on the level of red, green, and blue reported by those photosites adjacent to it. The Foveon X3 sensor creates its RGB color output for each photosite by combining the outputs of each of the stacked photodiodes at each of its photosites. This operational difference results in several significant consequences.
just take a look at photos from Foveon equipped cameras, very sharp!

User avatar
zsouthboy
Posts: 1395
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:12 am

Post by zsouthboy » Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:36 pm

zsouthboy wrote:Granted, I'm a photographer by trade, but:

The reason a real camera's image looks unsharp at 100% is a few different things; mostly it's a result of the AA filter (which is designed to blur anything over the nyquist frequency, to prevent aliasing) over the camera sensor, followed by the Bayer pattern of the sensor itself (which must be demosaiced before viewing), followed again by lens issues, diffraction, etc.

Therefore, the "blurriness" is excusable, out of camera.
:wink:

User avatar
Xman
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Guangdong-China

Post by Xman » Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:34 am

My standpoint:
More early previous,I have been think the fryrender is had better,
but after I test demo.I discover it has no the "weight and blur",
The MW is a quite good engine,but it's tanto"blur".
Intel i7-920,RAM 3G ,GeForce 9800GTX+.

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:30 am

zsouthboy wrote:
zsouthboy wrote:Granted, I'm a photographer by trade, but:

The reason a real camera's image looks unsharp at 100% is a few different things; mostly it's a result of the AA filter (which is designed to blur anything over the nyquist frequency, to prevent aliasing) over the camera sensor, followed by the Bayer pattern of the sensor itself (which must be demosaiced before viewing), followed again by lens issues, diffraction, etc.

Therefore, the "blurriness" is excusable, out of camera.
:wink:
yes all true, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that interpolating between 3 pixels to get one colour vs one pixel = colour makes a big difference :o

so your 8 megapixel camera with CCD sensor is really only around 3.5 megapixel in real detail. While a Foveon senor is giving your 1:1 detail
Like I said find some original crops from a CCD and compare em

so while it's still blurry, it's much less blurry :wink:

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:53 pm

Indigo vs Fry underwater caustics test

both rendered around 2 hours, with the Supersmapling option turned on in Fry. This is probably the slowest scene I have ever rendered in Indigo. While Fry was just ripping through it like nothing!
The difference in noise shows that...

The absorbtion in Fry only kicks in further down the walls, while in Indigo it's a constant blue.
If they are both physically based, then why do they look so different? :wink:

The caustics look pretty similar at least.
I prefer the Indigo version, Fry looks a little flat to me
Indigo with Fry's speed = WIN
Attachments
Water comapro.JPG
Water comapro.JPG (263.26 KiB) Viewed 2237 times

oogsnoepje
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:20 am

Post by oogsnoepje » Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:31 pm

The Fry-version looks like a trip to the north pole with water flying in the air.

Indigo looks more like under water to me :)

User avatar
CoolColJ
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by CoolColJ » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:57 pm

interestingly Fry is actually pretty slow indoors and lit by sunlight through exit portals for some reason... :shock:

User avatar
Kram1032
Posts: 6649
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:55 am
Location: Austria near Vienna

Post by Kram1032 » Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:39 pm

:( AGAIN!
The second pic, I can't see :( :(

jeffr
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:08 pm

Post by jeffr » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:13 am

I'm impressed more and more with Indigo everyday. I originally had it in my head that buying one of the commercial renderers would the better way to go if I had the extra money but I've seen enough to be sure Indigo is the best.

Post Reply
144 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests