This guy is developing a renderer.

Started by Seth, March 03, 2015, 07:40:23 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

Seth


Upon Infinity

Yeah, it is interesting.  All those tests remind me of my POV-Ray days, which, by the way, is also a very powerful renderer with similar features as he has shown.  But just because it can render, doesn't mean its useful...
3D Models / Art Prints: www.uponinfinity.com | YouTube | Twitter | Support My Work

Tangled-Universe

Very interesting indeed.

Equally painful also to see yet another thing already way ahead of TG - while being version a0.5 only at the moment, imagine - thus reminding how stone-age TG's raytracer is. Damn.

Upon Infinity

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on March 04, 2015, 03:50:14 am
Very interesting indeed.

Equally painful also to see yet another thing already way ahead of TG - while being version a0.5 only at the moment, imagine - thus reminding how stone-age TG's raytracer is. Damn.


TU, I think it's more a matter of TG's optimization bias for landscapes.  POV-Ray had all this going for it back in 2000.  Yet still I abandoned it.  It's open source.  I'm certain all the math at this point can be copied and pasted.  The point is, you don't need most that stuff for landscapes and even if you had it, it would be horrifically painfully slow to calculate I'm sure.  Although, I must admit, off water reflections would be nice.   ;)  But yeah, there are plenty of renderers out there that do that kind of non-bias laboratory work. 
3D Models / Art Prints: www.uponinfinity.com | YouTube | Twitter | Support My Work

Tangled-Universe

The thing is that with advanced tech you can cleverly combine sampling strategies so that you actually CAN get this to work in landscape situations.

What TG lacks for vegetation rendering is that it's not utilizing any of the smart tech available nowadays.
Why? Fine detail in vegetation doesn't receive any direct light, while it should. There's a big accuracy issue with TG's object raytracer.
TG casts very few rays for its GI, resulting in ultra-dark shadows without any indirect lighting information in it.
The only solution is to render it at insane resolution so that those few bounces of light TG utilizes actually manage "to get through".

Modern renderers use different methods for improving "resolution" and thus shadow detail looks much more realistic.
The way vegetation "blends" into the scene is so much better. Not to mention how more lifelike the shading looks like.
TG's vegetation looks great as long as the sun is > 90 degrees off camera (basically behind the camera).
This is simply because then there's more direct light and less shadows, which obfuscates the problem with the renderer.

TG's vegetation rendering is slow, has lower visual fidelity and does how many GI rays? 3?? We need a lot more for vegetation!
But yes, you're right in that it's OK for landscapes to have ~3 bounces.

With MIS you can combine sampling methods to reduce variance (noise, simply put) with less samples needed.
With modern tech you can bump that number up without too much performance loss, because the algorithms are more clever and MIS allows you to combine TG's lower fidelity sampling strategies (hence the noisy default water reflections) with the more modern tracing methods like BDPT.

Like this guy and many others....Veach's research on BDPT and MIS, consequently with VCM is what all modern renderers use: Corona, Vray, Arnold and also this guy :)

So that's why I said it's both very interesting so see something cool, but yet equally painful to realize how much behind TG is and will remain, because advances in the industry are greatly outpacing TG's development.

Seth

Quote from: Upon Infinity on March 04, 2015, 05:18:13 am

The point is, you don't need most that stuff for landscapes and even if you had it, it would be horrifically painfully slow to calculate I'm sure.


errr... proper glass shader, caustics, true mirror, faster renders, bokeh, etc...
If you can't see why some of us might need that kind of technology for landscapes, be sure that we can :)
And yeah, the point is to get really faster renders

TheBadger

Gota say those flowers look rather good!

It has been eaten.

otakar

T-U, those are some interesting observations. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge in this area. I wonder what Planetside's response to this would be.

goldfarb

physically based shading model...

...walks quietly away....
--
Michael Goldfarb | Senior Technical Director | SideFX | Toronto | Canada

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: otakar on March 04, 2015, 12:10:26 pm
T-U, those are some interesting observations. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge in this area. I wonder what Planetside's response to this would be.


Well said regarding observations.

I do read quite a few things though and understand some principles etc., but "great deal of knowledge" isn't something I would ascribe myself.

I'm a real movie-fan and like seeing dull/slow/purely character driven stuff, but I can also enjoy utter crap with great visuals (BattleShip, Pacific Rim, you name it) just because of those visuals to then wonder how it's made and what has been used.
For the past year I noticed that digital assets and environments became larger and larger.
Reading on the how/what regarding this work learned me about a number of rendering solutions/improvements like BDPT, MIS, VCM etc.
All in all in the past couple of years I noticed many of those rendering solutions allowed pipelines to be capable of TG-like digital environment things.

So yes, these are purely my observations. The industry is choosing a raytraced solution over REYES and eventually catching up or even outdoing by now and TG is getting hopelessly behind in performance (speed) and visual fidelity.

Quote from: goldfarb on March 04, 2015, 01:58:53 pm
physically based shading model...

...walks quietly away....


Haha, I think I see where that's coming from :)

I wouldn't mind you staying for a while ;)

TheBadger

Quotephysically based shading model...

...walks quietly away....


QuoteHaha, I think I see where that's coming from :)


teach me.
It has been eaten.

Upon Infinity

Quote from: Seth on March 04, 2015, 08:31:51 am
Quote from: Upon Infinity on March 04, 2015, 05:18:13 am

The point is, you don't need most that stuff for landscapes and even if you had it, it would be horrifically painfully slow to calculate I'm sure.


errr... proper glass shader, caustics, true mirror, faster renders, bokeh, etc...
If you can't see why some of us might need that kind of technology for landscapes, be sure that we can :)
And yeah, the point is to get really faster renders

'
Don't get me wrong.  I think the more features, the better.  And I have mentioned to Oshyan I'd like a check box somewhere for some brute force GI.  Although, I didn't see most of those features in the article above, either, although I only scanned it.  I didn't see anything about render times, bokeh, or true mirror.  I also, however, understand the need to optimize things for TG.  It is a biased renderer.  There are many, many unbiased ones out there, but you guys are choosing not to use them.  Why?  Would you like the link to POV-Ray?  It's free.  It's open source.  You can program in your own features as you choose.  I'll see you back here in a week.   ;)
3D Models / Art Prints: www.uponinfinity.com | YouTube | Twitter | Support My Work

Tangled-Universe

Well, the guy has responded to my question on Reddit on how he sees these recent advancements in raytracing can go with REYES-style rendering.

The short answer confirms what we already know from various discussions before: there's no rasterized version for evaluating physically accurate and correct GI.

The whole post then boils down to that REYES-style rendering is useless, except for calculating primary visibility of the displaced primitives.
From then on REYES-style rendering is infeasible because of aforementioned reason.

Furthermore he explains that REYES-style was favored in the early days when render power was expensive and lacking. Now there's plenty and it's relatively cheap.
Raytracing is economical now and because of industry/academic strain raytracing outperforms REYES-style rendering in both speed and visual fidelity, since a couple of years.

Tadaaa...

Of course I'm extremely biased about this ;) and thus "happy" to see someone who's really into this stuff kind of acknowledge my thoughts and feelings.

It seems to me there's little reason, if at all, for the industry/academic field to re-invest into a REYES approach.
Heck, it seems the latest Renderman isn't even a hybrid REYES/raytracer anymore, just pure raytracing. Hello???

I'm really worried about TG's future for a long time and this definitely didn't alleviate any of the concerns unfortunately, but it is what it is and I'm afraid it will stay like this?

Quote from: TheBadger on March 04, 2015, 04:12:28 pm
Quotephysically based shading model...

...walks quietly away....


QuoteHaha, I think I see where that's coming from :)


teach me.


I guess Michael (GoldFarb) was referring to a recent debate on physically based rendering in 3DCoat (I believe?).

There I said that I think it is nonsense to have PBR in 3DCoat, because why would a modeller software want to incorporate a non-standardized shading model if the model itself will be rendered in a different application?
Blablablabla...and so on.

For TG and any renderer a PBR approach is desired, for obvious reasons.

Upon Infinity

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on March 04, 2015, 04:50:32 pm

For TG and any renderer a PBR approach is desired, for obvious reasons.


If this is desired, then why criticize 3D Coat for implementing it?  Near as I can tell TG may actually be able to handle PBR already and if not, then with just a couple of tweaks.  I've been dabbling with PBR a bit and PBR textures export the same as normal textures, just with different maps;  colour specular and gloss specifically.
3D Models / Art Prints: www.uponinfinity.com | YouTube | Twitter | Support My Work

Tangled-Universe

March 05, 2015, 03:13:43 am #14 Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 03:19:21 am by Tangled-Universe
I'm not really sure why you're so defensive here Chad?

You said "then do it yourself, download POV-ray and I'll see you next week".
With Planetside quite the opposite is happening. There it's not a week but *9 years* of time with opportunity to catch up.

I mean I really don't want to put words in one's mouth or make one shut up, but these are fact figures.
TG's core has been released 9 years ago.
Imagine then that development probably started about early 2000's, likely.
In all that time an insane load of advancements have been made and PS has been "sleeping on 2 ears".

Quote from: Upon Infinity on March 04, 2015, 06:40:22 pm
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on March 04, 2015, 04:50:32 pm

For TG and any renderer a PBR approach is desired, for obvious reasons.


If this is desired, then why criticize 3D Coat for implementing it?  Near as I can tell TG may actually be able to handle PBR already and if not, then with just a couple of tweaks.  I've been dabbling with PBR a bit and PBR textures export the same as normal textures, just with different maps;  colour specular and gloss specifically.


The reason why I criticize 3D Coat for it is in the same sentence :)

Also, read again the reddit thread. There's some key info there on why TG's architecture can't handle PBR like the others out there.