Terragen 2 - Possibly Use Point Cloud Rendering?

Started by rcallicotte, April 15, 2010, 03:01:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

rcallicotte

So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

leafspring

Sounds interesting. Although all the examples used are quite close shots which leaves the question if this is actually applicable for the massive outdoor scenes TG is used for. There's a lot more lighting of all kinds going on.
Lang lang er vejen for Aslaug
Længe venter lykken på Kraka

rcallicotte

"Up" had extensively large scenes.  This was used in "Up".
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

leafspring

I didn't watch that movie but it seems to use a non-photorealistic render-style so realistic lighting (in a natural sense) probably wasn't a part of it.
Apart from that, what made me curious was the fact that 'Up' used this technique only in 90% of the shots. Since inter-diffuse reflection is basically needed in every artificial scene and point cloud lighting is a lot faster than radiosity I'm asking myself why they wouldn't always use it.
Lang lang er vejen for Aslaug
Længe venter lykken på Kraka

Oshyan

It's a very interesting optimization technique. Unfortunately I can't speak to whether it's applicable to TG2, but I also noticed the lack of any out the outdoor shots in Up as examples, and even if it was used in those cases, it's possible it was just in the closer parts (i.e. close to the camera). From the description of the technique, I'm not certain it could be applicable where e.g. you have a major diffuse GI light source (the sky for example) that is at relatively large distance from most surfaces.

- Oshyan

rcallicotte

Per the realism - Christensen notes, "Point-based color bleeding has now been used in more than 30 movies. It seems that color bleeding has finally made it into the standard production pipeline in most of the large studios. This means that the movies area able to achieve new levels of realism."

I can't say I know about the huge distance scenes, but the lighting in "Up" was magnificent and made what looks simple 100 times better than it would be in any other rendering system in 3D animation.

Things like speed and realism caught my eye and then I wonder what's possible.  Not trying to exhaust the Planetside crew.   ;D
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Tangled-Universe

#6
Quote from: Oshyan on April 16, 2010, 12:34:08 AM
It's a very interesting optimization technique. Unfortunately I can't speak to whether it's applicable to TG2, but I also noticed the lack of any out the outdoor shots in Up as examples, and even if it was used in those cases, it's possible it was just in the closer parts (i.e. close to the camera). From the description of the technique, I'm not certain it could be applicable where e.g. you have a major diffuse GI light source (the sky for example) that is at relatively large distance from most surfaces.

- Oshyan

The problem discussed in the article is that GI is barely used because it is too slow and that fill lighting setups are used to simulate color-bleeding and to obtain acceptable render time. I can imagine that the sky could give problems. However, the point of this article is that color-bleeding, a GI feature, is much faster and almost as accurate if not better when using point cloud rendering. That's why you don't see outdoor examples, because it doesn't really apply to it.

A possible scenario of TG2's rendering system could be:

The sky-system could be rendered with the raytracer. This already gives better results than the rasterizer, because you need lower amount of samples to get smooth results.
The terrain and objects could be rendered with point-cloud rendering. The article explicitely describes that point-cloud rendering is suitable for highly detailed displaced geometry. Also, distant geometry can be clustered efficiently to gain speed. We all know that if you render distant shots that the most distant part of the scene is the slowest by far.

In my opinion this is something which should definitly be looked into. 4 to 10x times faster, hard to ignore you'd say. Even if implementation in TG2 results in 2-3x reduction it is still a very interesting option.
Yesterday I saw some animated sequences of Vue in Clash of the Titans and they were so incredibly horrible ugly monsters :(
I bet the studio choose Vue over TG2 first because of Vue is known "better", but quite sure because of speed.
Optimizations like these could give a significant advantage?

Martin

Tangled-Universe

I'd say that this might be even more worth looking into than GPU rendering?

rcallicotte

From what I'm reading from this article, yes.

But, do I understand this like others (such as Matt) do?  Not a chance.  I was hoping to hear from him on this.

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on April 16, 2010, 09:37:01 AM
I'd say that this might be even more worth looking into than GPU rendering?
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Henry Blewer

VUE is also easier to use right from the box; that's why I think many studios chose it. It must be frustrating to use, unless they made it more stable.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

rcallicotte

#10
I'm not sure how often, since I don't work there, but I have understood from some who do that they take VUE and then do a lot of tweaking.  So, they could just learn TG2 and make some tweaking toward more realistic, in my opinion.

We saw the same thing in Avatar.  One of the lead artists used Lightwave and, because he was very good at it, he did well.  It doesn't seem to be the tool as much as the artist.  While I'm impressed with Rob Powers (http://www.robpowers.com/) and I was inspired to rethink LW, he's very skilled and so it wasn't LW that made the difference - it was Rob Powers.

Quote from: njeneb on April 16, 2010, 11:20:47 AM
VUE is also easier to use right from the box; that's why I think many studios chose it. It must be frustrating to use, unless they made it more stable.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: calico on April 16, 2010, 09:58:42 AM
From what I'm reading from this article, yes.
But, do I understand this like others (such as Matt) do?  Not a chance.  I was hoping to hear from him on this.

Indeed, not a chance. However, just by using common sense you would expect that it would be at least relevant to TG2, since it seems that point cloud rendering is especially suitable for lots of micropolygons. But perhaps the rasterize renderer is designed in such a way that it is difficult to integrate into the current renderer.
But we'll see. I too hope that Matt chimes in to give his thoughts about this.

Oshyan

"I can't say I know about the huge distance scenes, but the lighting in "Up" was magnificent and made what looks simple 100 times better than it would be in any other rendering system in 3D animation."

What are you basing that comment on? Even assuming (fairly, I'm sure ;D) that "100 times better" is mere hyperbole, I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the look of Up had much to do with this new rendering method. As the article states, what it does is make things faster, not look better.

As for the rest of the discussion, I think we're all drawing some very broad, sweeping conclusions based not only a short and non-technical article, but also on a very basic understanding of how TG2 itself works right now. I know when you say "you could use raytracing for the sky and point clouds for everything else" and "even a 2-3x reduction" it's really just a hope, but I think it's unrealistic to expect that kind of speedup, nor that implementation would necessarily be that simple.

In any case I'll try to have Matt weigh in on this. It's certainly interesting, I've just come to be very skeptical of any "magic bullet" optimization techniques, even if they come from production use with a major studio, because the things TG does are rather unique and seldom really tackled even by studios (most of the time they just use photo or hand painted matte backgrounds for this kind of stuff).

By the way, where was Vue used in Clash of the Titans? TG2 showed up in Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and Alice in Wonderland recently, so I don't feel too bad. ;) I would have been a bit more chagrined if the Vue fanboys had been right about Vue being used in Avatar (though I always knew it was just wishful thinking).

- Oshyan

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: Oshyan on April 16, 2010, 03:58:28 PM
As for the rest of the discussion, I think we're all drawing some very broad, sweeping conclusions based not only a short and non-technical article, but also on a very basic understanding of how TG2 itself works right now. I know when you say "you could use raytracing for the sky and point clouds for everything else" and "even a 2-3x reduction" it's really just a hope, but I think it's unrealistic to expect that kind of speedup, nor that implementation would necessarily be that simple.

Of course it are mainly hopes :) You missed my point where I said that it is perhaps not possible to fit it into TG2's rendering system. I'm aware of it's unique-ness ;)

Quote
By the way, where was Vue used in Clash of the Titans? TG2 showed up in Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus and Alice in Wonderland recently, so I don't feel too bad.  I would have been a bit more chagrined if the Vue fanboys had been right about Vue being used in Avatar (though I always knew it was just wishful thinking).
It was used especially in the beginning when Olympus is shown first as kind of floating castles in the clouds. The clouds in the foreground were maybe not Vue but in the background they definitely were. You see the same Vue clouds in every render. Really couldn't believe my eyes they used them straight from preset.
A bit later some other similar shots from Olympus with huge Vue clouds.

rcallicotte

@Oshyan - It was hyperbole.  "Up" looks fantastic.  This new rendering technique does make things look better.  I can see that.  That it's quicker by scads and scads of pixels per second is  something I would hope could make TG2 better.

But, then again I have no idea.  That's why I'm hoping to hear from THE MASTER.   ;D  Anyway, I bet he can tell us (me) a thing or two.   :P
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?