"I'd say it's far from perfect actually..."

Absolutely. Loads of nasties. But I think it is a better compromise than the Pro-Render compliant example for showing light interaction.

As far as that aspect goes, the most pleasing is the post edit brightened effort with shadows at 100. What's needed is a way of getting that level of illumination without side-effects. I think the answer to that is probably having True Ambience work with linear falloff. I get the feeling it works at squared.

But somehow I don't see True Ambience as a priority project in Bryce6.

"Len, this is what happens in real life! Bryce is getting it right" It's not 'exactly' what happens in real life, and Bryce certainly isn't getting it right. TA calculations can never be compared to real-world activity other than the obvious job it does of giving a good representation. TA calculations like I said, are very crude - and it's this crudeness that forced me to change PR from 100 to 50. Remember the first Moonlit-Room image in the other thread? - That was when I too thought 100% was obvious :-) From that point onward, the only thing I could do is experiment more, I did - and it lead to the realisation that 100% with TA is a definate no-go! Think about it - if I'd had it right in the first place of using 100%, why would I make such a drastic change? You're seeing PR as only half the solution it's supposed to be, and while the shadows argument might seem a no-brainer in isolation, it takes on a whole new importance when you want to bring balanced materials into the equation. The problems with TA have a knock-on effect on balanced materials and destroy a lot of potential realism. "Ah yes. I've pretty much solved that with setting materials with an ambient level of 60 instead of 100." That's great, but if you did that in PR without considering the material rules - you'd break it. "I'm doing a couple of renders right now that I think will confirm my suspicions that the light that comes through opaque objects when shadows are set at 50 does not interact with True Ambience very well at all." Once the light hit's a surface that's it! That surface is what it is, and will have exactly the same effect it would have if were already that intensity. That's one of the reasons I'm playing dirty, in order to compensate for the excessive bias of TA. "But somehow I don't see True Ambience as a priority project in Bryce6." lol - Me neither. I just wish they'd add Motion-Blur, Caustics, and A 'working' TA or Radiosity into the current renderer. And whatever they do, they'd better not remove the 'progressive' ability - that's what worries me more than anything. Rayraz, that's impressive thinking. What you're getting at all boils down to luminance. Based upon luminance, I could make PR as near perfect as possible no problem. But it's too complicated a method to expect an artist to manage all that would be involved, manually. If Bryce had scripting ability, luminance-based logic would indeed be the way to go. Again, it's important to remember that PR needs to be the best comprimise of speed/accuracy/reality in order to make it a usable product. Unfortunately, it's not possible to have the best of all worlds - I wish it were! Len. (Peter, those renders are vile - stop it, stop it right now!)

"Once the light hit's a surface that's it! That surface is what it is, and will have exactly the same effect it would have if were already that intensity."

I think you're wrong, Len - how else can you explain the result in post 101?. True Ambience doesn't work properly with light that has had shadow-casting disabled*.

"...and it lead to the realisation that 100% with TA is a definate no-go!

Maybe a no-go with your Pro-Render requirements, but essential to proper True Ambience operation.

" - you'd break it."

I think it's already broken.

*Bryce creates its low intensity shadows by converting a proportion of the light that strikes a surface into non shadow-casting light. In the case of the sun (no falloff) - that means all the way through every object and right on to the edge of Bryce world (wherever that is).

Over a hundred posts basically disussing what Bryce 6 needs to be able to do. =o} AS

Thats what i said in post #85

All in all it boils down to what looks good and what not. Actually this has been done time after time, only those who did that do not call it pro-render and where certainly not planning on selling some dailsettings, because that's what pro-render is in my opinion. Waiting for Bryce 6 would be a better idea, and see what it can produce.

Alternative is what AS suggested "I've GOT to sit down and learn how to use any 3rd party rendering app..."

So lets use PR for what it is worth (and that ain't much in my opinion) and produce bryce-renders (with to settings that suit the scene), and that goes also for you Len, its about time that start to fill that gallery of yours.

"Once the light hit's a surface that's it! That surface is what it is, and will have exactly the same effect it would have if were already that intensity. That's one of the reasons I'm playing dirty, in order to compensate for the excessive bias of TA." Only problem with this is that you eliminate the possibility to have completely dark area's in your image. I think the solution of eliminating excessive bias of TA lies in adjusting the balance of your textures, though this might not mean a universal balance that would be the same for every texture in the scene. "Rayraz, that's impressive thinking. What you're getting at all boils down to luminance. Based upon luminance, I could make PR as near perfect as possible no problem. But it's too complicated a method to expect an artist to manage all that would be involved, manually. If Bryce had scripting ability, luminance-based logic would indeed be the way to go." hmmm... I'm wondering, did you ever use any software capable of rendering with GI, Radiosity, AO or Final Gathering? You might be looking for a universal solution to managing realistic lighting in your 3d scenes, but even the pro's at large production studio's experiment with the material and lighting settings in order to get the right look they're after rather then sticking to a universal solution. Still, PRO-RENDER could be a nice step for people into the realm of TA, especially if it explains well how things work and why PRO-RENDER uses certain techniques/settings. Especially in combination with the pros and cons connected to these choises. I wouldn't say PR ain't worth a thing, unlike others here, I think it could be a good documentation on TA and it's workins if PR is worked out as such. However a universal "true render solution" it is not. But maybe you're not claiming it to be a universal true solution? If people buy books, dvd's, e-books, tutorials about 3d software and renderers and techniques of using them, then I don't see why PR should not be sold really...

I have to say I'm amazed at some of the comments in this thread. It's clear that the whole point of the product and how it's designed to work, is going in one ear and flying out the other at break-neck speed. I've stated time and time again that "the product needs to be a realistic compromise of error/speed/reality", so what part of that are people not understanding? Unless you grasp what I'm saying here, then you're not going to understand why the rules are the way they are, or even why PR was developed. When I say it has to be a "compromise", it means exactly that, nothing more - nothing less, so again for the final time; PRO-RENDER has to be a compromise of error/speed/reality! It can NOT be allowed to bias towards ANY of those attributes; because in doing so, the other attributes would start to go AWOL! In turn that would result in a less "real" render, and as PR is geared towards photographic qualities, it can't be allowed. 100% shadows IN THIS RENDERER will NOT for the most part give more photographic results than you'd acheive by reducing them. Like I said, PR is based on the 'visual' aspect, NOT the logical one. RobertJ, as much as I'd like to fill my gallery - I won't. I've stated once before, the reasons I don't post to my gallery. If people think it's because I'm incapable, then they're more than welcome to do so. So long as 'I' know I'm capable of producing a photograph from a renderer, I'm happy. Rayraz, I really don't understand why you felt the need to take the piss; Have I even used GI before? - lol Hey maybe you're right though, maybe I haven't used it before - and don't have any conception of what it is. I've got work to do. I'll leave the "uncomplete" PR files up until I need to restructure the site. Len.

lol don't be offended, I was just asking...

---

Anyways, I think there's one general misconception going on here;
-->>THERE IS NOT ONE SUPERDUPER ULTIMATE MIRACLE LIGHTING SOLUTION TO RULE THEM ALL!<<--

--
Thank you.

---

Now that we're back in reality on lighting solutions lets switch back into reality in general here:

To me it seems PR is one of many possible solutions to creating visually photorealistic renders under certain conditions.

Like with many more complex lighting solutions, changing settings can break the balance in the way your scene looks. This is probably what lem means with his 50% shadow thing.

The solution isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be! Look at some of the example renders, you have to admit they look pretty darn nice.
Ofcourse the solution has it's pros and cons, but so have all the alternatives mentioned here.

Like I said before, the renderer of bryce is not entirely true to reality when it comes to lighting calculations, therefore you can't expect to get a single flawless solution that works for everything.

PR is one possible solution that can bring people a step closer to creating realistic looking lighting, that's all.

Try it, see what you like, what you dislike, experiment, change what you want to change to fit your taste when it comes to the final render result. No one's telling you not to use your own input people!

Len is saying, if you break the rules set in his solution, you won't get the pro-render compliant results. This is very true.
If you change the ingredients, the result will change even a child knows this. A chocolate pie is made with chocolate, an apple pie is made with apples, a creampie is stops, Oh wait, no, a child might not know that :-P
If you change things, don't cry if it doesn't look like len's example renders.

Having said that, if the pro-render compliant solution doesn't quite satisfy your needs, feel free to go and experiment on your own, maybe taking PR as starting point, maybe not, no one's holding you back to experiment!
Just be like you've always been in bryce; Be creative with your available toolset and the solutions you use.

Now lets stop throwing mud at each other and lets get on with our life.

Message edited on: 02/14/2006 09:08

Ray, no one's throwing mud, I already am getting on with my life, and always have been. The only reason this thread is here is because after the amount of "banging-on" I've done about PR, it wouldn't have been right if I didn't show anything of it. Under the circumstances, I thought what the hell - and released whatever could be salvaged. What you have here is not full PR, it's just bits'n'bobs. What annoys me is that people think I'm so stupid, I would develop a product based on a feature which will more than likely be dropped from Bryce. People forget, but when I first publicised the product, there was little chance of seeing a spanking new renderer in Bryce. And I have to wonder what the general attitude would have been like if I'd 'finished' PR and Bryce6 wasn't to be! Suggestions that PR isn't much use, and would perhaps only be of interest to TA freaks is TOTALLY wrong. The exact OPPOSITE is true. People who understand TA are going to be less impressed with PR because they already know how to get a good render by using the feature. The product was designed to bring that ability to a novice, and to allow them to create photorealism in 'any' type of scene. Before I make my last post in this thread, I will say this: TO THOSE THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN FURTHERING THEIR SKILL: Ignore any negativity towards the product. People will be people and will pull something down without reason if they're lame enough, and it tickles their fancy enough to do so. It's easy to beleive what anyone tells you, if you don't fully understand the subject. But I'm telling you now; The idea behind those balances used in PR are more important than you can imagine, and doesn't even have any concrete link to TA whatsoever. People who take the time to learn those rules, will take away a skill which will give them an 'edge' over others - even when they move onto an entirely different renderer. People who learn, will see things differently and apply the logic of what they've learnt in other renderers too. Trust me, those balances were developed for a reason, and they're good enough to compensate the shortcomings of even a full-blown Radiosity renderer (not just the crappy limitations in Bryce). Don't even think that when Bryce gives you Radiosity, you'll have everything you need for photorealism - because you won't. Learn the rules though, any you'll have an edge over those that don't - period. That advice is there in good will, to everyone who want's to further their skill - and it's everyones choice to make their own decision. You can take the advice or leave it - but generally I'd have to say; Learn it!

and now for a rehash of my previously deleted forum post, minus the negativity.

Pumeco it seems like you've done a LOT of work on this project. I did some digging around in the old threads and read most of it, and aside from all the negativity I have to agree with a few points that PJF and others made many, many months ago.

what exactly is "professional" about Pro-Render? Do you think it's the shading? Do you think that it's the fact that you can't use meshes in TA in Bryce without multiplying their memory load? Do you think it's professional that you can't animate with it without computers being thousands of times faster?

but I have other disagreements as well, for example in #74 PJF states that "True Ambience is close enough to radiosity as makes no significant difference". I apologize in advance for offending you, but you couldn't be further from the truth. TA has what, THREE controls over it's "emission"? i saw the post where you "bounced light", but after working with mental ray for the past few years what you're really doing there is bouncing diffusion, and this is a very different thing.

Corel introduced True Ambience as a quick workaround for actually having to program anything. It calculates nothing like real light. Bryce is a ray-tracer only, and these "rays" are not light rays in any way! They are data rays that describe what color a pixel should be based off of certain elements. Bryce never had (and never will, at this rate) anything resembling photon calculation OR radiosity, and having used other apps that DO have these features it's vastly apparent that TA was just someone's quicky workaround to making radiosity / GI effects.

my main point is this, Pumeco : while you are able to do some interestingly soft shadows and lighting techniques with PR, you could already do those with Bryce. you have merely made a set of materials which utilize TA in a more realistic way. why would you tout this as a "renderer", like mental ray or V-ray? youv'e done no programming, no research into how light works (at least that you've shared here), and basically wasted everyone's time to draw attention to yourself. I don't think that qualifies as "progress".

to paraphrase another old-school Bryce user, in the amount of time it would take to make ONE Pro-Render animation, you could go out and get a job, BUY 3DS / Maya / XSI, and finish the entire animation with time to spare. HOURS per frame? to achieve something that most programs can do in mere minutes or seconds? what exactly is professional about wasting your own time?

but hey, that's kinda harsh I admit. to be honest, I'm impressed by all the labor you've put into this project! Bryce is all about making workarounds to deal with things, but one thing it will never be is "professional", no matter what kinds of materials you throw in there.

honestly, I'd like to see you go pro Pumeco. you have a diligence and devotion which would be a wonder in the high-end atmosphere, although i think you'd give Modulok many headaches!

Message edited on: 02/14/2006 17:12

.

"what exactly is "professional" about Pro-Render? Do you think it's the shading? Do you think that it's the fact that you can't use meshes in TA in Bryce without multiplying their memory load? Do you think it's professional that you can't animate with it without computers being thousands of times faster?" Do you seriously even consider it reasonable to expect pumeco to solve these issues?? How's he supposed to solve that without having acces to the bryce code? "i saw the post where you "bounced light", but after working with mental ray for the past few years what you're really doing there is bouncing diffusion, and this is a very different thing." uhm... True Ambience uses the >>ambience<< channel for bounced light, not the diffusion channel... Just so you know ;) Besides, Mental Ray uses foton rendering for advanced lighting, it's an entirely other technique then TA, you can't really compare apples with pears. However this doesn't mean that TA is a potentially visually powerfull technique. (I've used mental ray pretty extensively also btw, so I know what I'm talking about here) "you have merely made a set of materials which utilize TA in a more realistic way. why would you tout this as a "renderer", like mental ray or V-ray" ok 1st of all it's called "pro-render" not "pro-renderer" 2ndly it's a lighting solution... that's not the same as a render engine. I haven't seen pumeco claim anywhere that this is a render engine, so what exactly is your problem? "what exactly is professional about wasting your own time?" Nothing is professional about it, but it's been clearly stated pro-render is about the professional looking visual endresult, not about creating a professional renderengine. And hey, lets be honest, TA or no TA, bryce is not a professional animation tool.

i see then, rayraz. so as a parallel, for example, if Bryce were defamed for the possibility that it might not render a truly realistic Bryce canyon, nobody would really worry about it? point taken! I've never really thought about it that way...

InfernalDarkness:
"#74 PJF states that "True Ambience is close enough to radiosity as makes no significant difference". I apologize in advance for offending you, but you couldn't be further from the truth."

I find your taking my comments out of context disappointing and frustrating, not offensive.

I also wrote in that post:
"True Ambience and radiosity are both render processes that simulate diffuse light reflections between surfaces. They work differently - but neither equates to the way real light reflects in the real world."

I'm well aware, and stated so, that the process of True Ambience is different from radiosity. I was talking about the visual result. Apart from the artefacts and errors induced by the limited implementation of True Ambience in Bryce5, the result is the same as radiosity - the appearance of realistic light bounce between surfaces.

"Bryce is a ray-tracer only, and these "rays" are not light rays in any way! They are data rays..."

No 3D graphics renderer of any sort has "light rays". These are computer programs that deal in data calculations. The mechanism of radiosity is entirely unlike the action of real light.

"...it's vastly apparent that TA was just someone's quicky workaround to making radiosity / GI effects."

If they'd only finish the job properly I'd be quite happy. If the results are good I don't really care if it doesn't meet with someone else's standard of what a "professional" program is supposed to do.

well I have to disagree with you in a very large way on this one, PJF. many programs, most especially mental ray, Renderman, and of course Maxwell deal with light the same way that "real-life" renderers (our eyes, cameras) do. the physics behind photons, radiosity, and the "mechanism" you speak of have been calculated for decades, merely awaiting fast enough PC's to deal with them... the same holds true for ray-tracing algorithms, which were developed by hand in the '70's originally. take a Google at mental ray sometime, or Maxwell, and you'll find that radiosity is indeed just like real light. an object radiating visible light produces radiosity, thus the prefix. you will note that ray-traced "light" doesn't act anything like photons do. as for your disclaimer about what "professional" is and your indifference to it, my point was that for someone to make a profession out of Pro-Render would mean that their lifelong accumulation of final projects (money-projects, that is) would be limited in proportion to it's vastly, vastly slow render-times. so, a V-ray or mental ray user would finish several thousand more projects in their lifetime, and in turn pull in several thousand times the revenue. as a career choice, or a "profession", the math simply doesn't add up for Pro-Render. of course, one could just play it all off as Pro-Render being FOR rendering, such as Pro-choice people are FOR choice or, prohibition is FOR hibition whatever hibition might be!

Wanna make a good professional living off 3d? Buy a professional program, learn it, get a good network of contacts, ask 40-200 bucks an hour depending on your skills and off you go! Are you a hobbyist who doesn't want to spend thousands of bucks but would still like to create professional looking results in bryce without having to figure out the ins and outs of TA all by yourself? Try pro-render and see if it helps you along. It's free here anyways so what's there to lose? Don't mix things up ;)

I wasn't gonna post in this thread again, but I will anyway - sorry :-D Nah, I've got something to say about a test I'm doing right now, but before I do there's a few words I want to say on this thread. Basically, and 'finally', someone seems to have got the reason for PR's existence (or part-existence as the case may be). Ray is correct in his statements of why the product would be useful. The fact is, PR was never promoted as being a replacement renderer, or indeed being of use in a professional environment. It was designed to help Bryce users get photographic results without needing to understand the ins/out and problems associated with TA. The important thing to note here is that I said "Bryce" users! Important, because as a Brycer who really can't afford to be shelling-out for Mental-Ray, V-Ray, Maxwell etc, I figured that a product that could give the 'look' of a higher-end renderer in Bryce might be received well. I was wrong. It's all very well people saying stuff like "yeah but I can do that in Maya!" or "excuse me while I crank-up my copy of 3DS-Max" - I say bully for you, enjoy it! You certainly paid enough money for the priviledge ;-) I'm a Brycer, and like a lot of other Brycers I'm drawn to using it simply because Bryce is Bryce, and I think it would have been cool to have 'high-end' looking features in a render created even by novices or Bryce newbies. I just think there's more satisfaction to be had in thinking you've produced a render with qualities that might not usually be expected from a particular renderer. I also think anything that can aid people in using Bryce to kick high-end ass, is a good thing ;-) I mean, call me sick or call me kinky. But I get an overwhelming amount of satisfaction when I look at the high-end stuff and think "f*ck-you and your multi-thousand dollar application - I'll kick your ass with Bryce any day!" Anyway, it's a shame I've released it like this, but it's done now so that's that. Which brings me to the reason I'm back in the thread: Peter, I've been doing a test but it means I've got to render at four-times the RPP to be able to find out what I need to know. If (and only if) it turns out OK I'll post the render, and you can cast your cautious eye over it if you wish - and let me know what you think. I remember you asked why I can't allow the shadows to be adjusted: Well, I still don't think it would be wise, but I think with just one 'working-range' type of rule, maybe 100% shadows is going to be possible, or at least 75% (without giving overpowering side-effects on other elements of the product). The problem is the staining effect with colour, so I'm rendering a scene with 'clashing' colour in order to get the info I need. I'm having to use 'render-to-disk' and didn't even bother with the preview so... InfernalDarkness, no prob's - I'm not offended. Actually, I'd give myself a headache so god knows what I do to the rest of ya :-D Len. (So there)

InfernalDarkness:
"...you'll find that radiosity is indeed just like real light."

Humbug.

Having already read up on radiosity, and on global illumination mechanisms, I am fully aware that they are all very unlike real light. If you believe otherwise then you are ignorant of the details of these processes; or of how real light works (or both).

Photon mapping is the most like real light to the extent that the simulation does at least involve some virtual light starting out from a designated source and being followed (to some degree) as it interacts with a scene in a way analogous to actual light behaviour. But this is only one part of the process and very limited in scope. There has to be a statistical estimation made to compensate for that limitation. And the resultant "photon map" has to be combined (via another estimation) with normal ray-traced direct illumination in order to simulate any indirect illumination. The combination involves what you call "data rays" being sent outwards via the ray-trace renderer in order to cross reference with the photon map. Like real light? I don't think so.

Radiosity algorithms also simulate the interaction of light between surfaces, but they work "back" from the (arbitrarily subdivided) surfaces, not "out" from a light source. The algorithms involve imaginary, compromise constructs such as the "Nusselt Analog" and the "hemicube" that also have no counterpart in the physics of real light.

All 3D graphics processes are simulations and analogies. Even those that use algorithms that take into account some of the characteristics of real light still work in unrealistic ways to achieve an illusion of reality. There is no spoon.

If the pictorial results from using Bryce True Ambience (and other "quicky" workarounds of Distributed Ray Tracing that might save from "having to program anything") can be as realistic as those produced by other rendering processes, then that's fine with me. That is the context in which I stated that True Ambience is as close to radiosity as makes no difference.

I really couldn't care less if these entirely mathematical "rays" work forwards, backwards or sideways.

A hundred and twenty-five! (as I plant my flag) *Well, its a 125 for me anyway (I see ALL the deleted posts) AS

is that a call to end this discussion, AgentSmith? i hope it's not too abnormal to have disagreements online here? PJF, I meant that REAL radiosity is indeed just like real light, because it actually is real light. i didn't mean that various 3D versions of radiosity solutions were perfectly accurate. it's good that you read up on radiosity and GI, but alas reading up on them doesn't equate to having used them for years my friend. i am ignorant of nothing, and have been studying photons and photon-mapping as it were for years. you seem to think that real light acts in some mystical and unforeseeable way, my friend. that it's not caculable by mathematics, and that photons don't follow physical rules which are in fact computable. this mystical world of light seems very poetic, but doesn't reflect the reality of things at all. photon-mapping in mental ray, for example, is as accurate as you like it to be. you merely turn down the settings for previewing your scene, then crank them way up when you approach final rendering. So, for a scene with only one light such as a lamp, that bulb actually DOES emit a certain range in quantity of photons. if we say a lamp emits 1,000,000 photons per second, for example, with a jitter of maybe +/- 100,000 to account for fluctuations in power consumption, then how is this not calculable in a scene? do you think a REAL lamp is unmeasurable in those aspects? this is exactly what photon-mapping is. also, you mention that the photon map has to be combined with ray-tracing for cross-referencing? poppycock. you can turn off ray-tracing but turn on "Direct illumination shadow effects" and use ONLY photons to light a scene. NOT like real light? how so? do you think that the millions of R&D that mental images spent perfecting their software was wasted on this mystical, incalculable thing called photon-mapping? do you think for one second that Maya, XSI, 3DS, and mental ray are unable to perform this higher-level of math with great ease? photons emit, decay, bounce, refract, reflect, and carry color with them all along the way, changing wavelengths as they go. anyone who's ever seen a prism knows this. and in all your readings did you miss the part where they stated, "photon mapping is exactly what is says it is : photon mapping"? Well, now you have "read" it, an so you will know it. radiosity simluations only work backwards in Bryce. i highly suggest reading up on mental ray, everything you stated in your last post has been completely contradicted in fact and in function by this program. using Final Gather produces emission of light from any surface, based on a huge quantity of possible attributes. Image-Based Lighting is achieved this way, where the light and dark values of an image are sampled to control the radiance. when used in conjunction with photon-mapping, how is this not accurate and "like real light"? you're saying there is no spoon, because you are only using your eyes, and not your finger to touch it! and lastly, "If the pictorial results from using Bryce True Ambience (and other "quicky" workarounds of Distributed Ray Tracing that might save from "having to program anything") can be as realistic as those produced by other rendering processes, then that's fine with me." Well, to sum it up : it can't. Bryce simply can't be as realistic as the others, and can never animate those "pro-renders". not to say it doesn't have value, but what you're all trying to say here is that your '78 Ford Pinto is going to keep up with a 2006 Skyline. MY point is that you can take the Pinto to the store, on a date (what?!?), or to the movies, but you certainly can't take it to the races no matter how many "Pro-Racer" decals you slap on it.

"i hope it's not too abnormal to have disagreements online here"? You mean when the discussion is about TA, radiosity, GI, & pro-render? Uh, no. ;oD AS

"not to say it doesn't have value, but what you're all trying to say here is that your '78 Ford Pinto is going to keep up with a 2006 Skyline. MY point is that you can take the Pinto to the store, on a date (what?!?), or to the movies, but you certainly can't take it to the races no matter how many "Pro-Racer" decals you slap on it." ah... keeping up with... high visual results are possible, check out the galleries if you don't believe me. the speed at which you get there is not what pro-render can change, but it's also something it doesn't claims to do either! aaaand I've yet to hear someone say "thanx to TA I can simulate real life lighting fast enough to compete with 3dsmax!" so I'm not sure where you heard people say bryce can keep up. Having said that, a good cartuner can make your pinto look hotter then an amature cartuner can make u a custom skyline ;-) (personally I don't like the skyline that much all together but that's a bit OT)

"you seem to think that real light acts in some mystical and unforeseeable way, my friend. that it's not caculable by mathematics, and that photons don't follow physical rules which are in fact computable. this mystical world of light seems very poetic, but doesn't reflect the reality of things at all." PJF never said nor implied such things... and it's highly unlikely if not laughable to make the assumptions u just made :-P oh, btw, do u think only 1.000.000 photons in your 3d scene is true to real life? ;)

PJF certainly did imply such things, Rayraz. more than that, he outright stated that real light can't be simulated on a computer. scroll up. i'll not be forced into some kind of mental submission with the oldbies around here, but do you see what my entrance into this thread has done?

i've made all you "oldbies" actually stick together on this issue! and after all the trash you've talked about Pumeco through the years... all too easy.

anyway, no, I don't think 1,000,000 photons would be enough to create realism at the resolution our EYES work at. not even close. lucky for us, we're dealing with computers with much more finite resolutions, rayraz, so that many photons isn't necessary. the proof is in the pudding. look at all the wonderful, beautiful renders out there! some are from Bryce, no less... but the most photorealistic ones are, guess what, from photon-mappers.

this wasn't intended to turn all the brycers defensive, which is very easy in these forums due to general underdog insecurities, but to point out that there are many issues with pro-render TECHNICALLY that make it unfeasible as a tool. consider it as a paint-brush with one of those stray bristles you just can't get rid of.

and i'll have you know that i'm an excellent Brycer myself! i merely brought up important questions. i feel I've had them answered, and the general answer in this thread to my questions has been :

"So!"

Message edited on: 02/16/2006 06:32

Real "Real" light can't be simulated on a computer because a computer works with data not with photons... ;) lol no optronics yet hehe, that's how I took it anyways. photon simulations, raytracers, it's all data! that's what PJF said I think... And the whole mystical bs was defenitely not said. And todays renderers are still significantly untrue to reality, especially when acceptable rendering speeds are a must (one of your key arguments against using TA) we still jump to simplified solutions on a constant basis.

real light cannot be REPRODUCED, Rayraz, but is simulated all the time. I am simulating it as we speak on several different projects. as i mentioned, only the output resolution differs from real-life. simulating real light isn't the question : accuracy in this simulation IS the point. the "mystical bs" was indeed said, by me, as an adjective for how PJF appears to feel about realistic lighting. to understand the nature of debate is to understand that i am what I say, and am without equal in this arena. perhaps your renderers are untrue to reality, especially when acceptable rendering speeds are a must, but this reality is in fact not reality at all, but your subjective experience my friend. I have been rendering photon-mapped scenes for years with complex scenes, which take mere minutes (less than ten!) with mental ray. the compass picture, for example, in my gallery took less than five minutes using image-based lighting and global illumination. but see now I digress. my aim wasn't to discourage Brycers, or slander Bryce itself, but to point out that Pro-Render isn't what it says it is. perhaps i wouldn't have been so anti-PR had it been called something like, "SuperTA" or something less misleading. my problem is this : everything Pumeco has done with PR can be done without it, inside Bryce, using the settings they already gave us. so for him to claim he actually DID anything, or to tout PR as some kind of renderer (which is implied by it's name, regardless of intent) is pretty weak. it would be like me saving my Render Global settings in Bryce or Maya and then trying to play them off as "something new and something I MADE". "Hey, I've been perfecting my render options for years, and now I'm saying it's a PRODUCT!" i would be the laughingstock of the Maya community, which I already may be but that's another topic! it's simply settings, people. there's nothing new going on under the hood with PR, nor does it make TA any easier to use, NOR does it make better renders than Bryce could already do, at all.

"real light cannot be REPRODUCED, Rayraz" lol duh, that was the point I was making in my 1st sentanced :-P The bs was said by you yes, but it's not what PJF was talking about. you're not going to claim that the compas is a complex scene right? lol 'cause I know u can make that kinda renders with photon renderers easy, I'm using mental ray professionally too remember? ;-) What I mean with complex scenes are scenes with high polygon counts, organic shapes, reflective and/or refractive materials, reflective and refractive caustics, global illumination and final gathering all in use. Anyone can render a simple compass picture with photon renderers, but you ain't telling me that scenes requiring simulation of 20 million or more photons just to look decent are already efficient enough for professional use right now. Many professional studio's are not making use of GI and the likes unless it's absolutely essential because it still takes too long to render! "Pro-Render isn't what it says it is" What do you think it says it is then? because what I read it says it's a guideline on how to go about setting up scenes making use of TA to create nice looking results. It's settings, yes, and that's what it says it is. There's nothing there bryce couldn't already do, and so it has been said my it's maker already. It doesn't make TA easier, it's still the same TA there always was, and no one, including PR's maker has denied this. BUT what it does do is this; it hands you a set of rules or guidelines that allows you to use make a TA based material and lighting setup without actually having to fully understanding it's entire concept or without having to find out these settings on your own through many hours of trial and error. It's theory, a tutorial, whatever u wanna call it! And no one's denying that. As for the laughing stocks of the maya community... check out things like: "Digital Lighting & Rendering" by Jeremy Birn, a famous highly regarded book about... guess what?? drum roll.............. Rendering and lighting 3d scenes! OMG, can you believe someone sells that?? I could just roll over the floor laughing! It's not even good enough to be given way for free! How can someone come up with theory on how to light and render your 3d scenes and turn it into a product and sell it?? Dear lord, what must become of the poor fool who wrote this product?? Someone please complain that this book does not come with a built in render engine coded by it's writer! Please, anyone, slander the name of Jeremy Birn for selling a book that can't even simulate photons!

"everything Pumeco has done with PR can be done without it, inside Bryce, using the settings they already gave us. so for him to claim he actually DID anything, or to tout PR as some kind of renderer (which is implied by it's name, regardless of intent) is pretty weak." Wrong! PR would have provided a solution for people who don't fully understand TA etc. How many more times, if people really haven't got this by now, then there are folk around here a lot more nutty than I am! As for the title - nah, I won't be "Pro-Rendering" either this weekend - I'll be designing synths (heaven). Also, I couldn't give a F*uck weather 1 or 1000 people will be "Pro-Rendering" - I know 'I' will for just about every render I make in the near future, and I'll take plesure in the knowledge I was clever enough, NOT to have spent thousands of dollars in order to get a good render! "Well, to sum it up : it can't. Bryce simply can't be as realistic as the others" Speak for yourself. I don't care how many fancy features you have in Maya, if I wanted to do it bad enough - I'd equal a Maya render with Bryce. Bryce might not be 'high-end', but together with TA, Blurred-Reflections, and Blurred-Refractions the ingredients are there if you know how to use them. Have fun with Maya ;-) Peter, here's the renders. I know what a perfectionist you are, so I'd like it if you'd give the same amount of attention to these, as you did the previous renders. OK, the top image is using 100% shadows (but it wasn't rendered with 100% shadows). The bottom one is a streight render (other than desaturation applied - in order to allow better scrutinization of light'n'shadow). Basically, I thought seeing as virtual RPP needs to be used in order to reduce grain - why not use a virtual process to give 100% shadows. The render you see was rendered with 75% shadows, which is the best balance between error and using 100%. I want you to look at the gradation and notice how (in comparison) the other traits are 'nearly' non-existant. The top image has been 'Equalised' and therefore provides solid black to solid white where needed. I've also uploaded the original in all it's ...err... glory so maybe people will save it to disk, practice desaturation, equalisation and resampling on it. Again, I'm no artist, but from a 'naturalness' of light point of view, that,s the most realistic lighting I've ever seen from PR, and I'm thinking maybe this is the way to go if I get time to finish it. Hope you guys like the new settings. AgentSmith as you know, it was me deleted a lot of posts (typo's) :-D Len. (Errr no, I don't have Orlaith McAllister's phone number, and even if I did...)

Rayraz, i don't appreciate you mocking or slandering my work. i find it offensive, and take pride in knowing something you do NOT know : I am not left-handed! you contradicted yourself in the last two posts heavily, and considering your inability to communicate effectively i'll go ahead and withdraw from this conversation. sarcasm, insult, and unkind words leave me agreeing with the general consensus about Renderosity, but i won't blame you for everything, just for those things i just mentioned. Pumeco, there's not any way i can think of to get you to upgrade to a more advanced renderer or package, but i'll tell you that your renders are nice! still, there'e nothing there that you need pro-render for : it's just straight Bryce, and still looks like Bryce, and although they are clean it's obvious at a glance that it's CGI. i am not trying to discourage you in any way, and hope you continue progressing! i believe i came across too aggressively, but still managed to unify the Bryce community to be pro-Pro-Render... sometimes it takes an outsider to unify insiders?

No prob's, but again like I said I'm no artist. Anyone can tell my renders a CG, but the point is, if I didn't want you to tell - I like to think I could pull it off. Boring as it is, that render is lit VERY realistically, and the only thing marking it out as CG is the fact that there are no 'real-word' imperfections in it. Add peelind paper to the walls, uneven floorboards, chips in the sill paintwork etc, and it would take-on a further level of realism - I just can't be bothered. Len. (I'm not sure I 'fully' understand your last statement) :-)

thank you for your reply Pumeco, you have made me feel much better about feeling like an idiot here!

Sorry, but you're coming from two different angles. Like I said, I don't "fully" understand your last statement. I feel I know what you're getting at, but didn't think it would go down well if it were pasted in the thread, and so I didn't (presumably for the same reason you didn't). What I don't understand is why you did it. I can't answer what I think you're trying to say because if I did, then it would hardly be discreet would it - you see what I'm saying? Thank's for liking the renders, and for suggesting I'd be good enough to handle a better one. For what it's worth I've got nothing against Maya, it's users, or indeed any of the 'high-end' applications - why would I? The thing is, I get annoyed when people discuss what I 'should' be doing with stuff I simply can't afford to buy. It's even worse when you're told that anything you do is basically a waste of time in comparison. If you want to say something you don't want people to read, just IM me - I don't bite ;-) Len.

Attached Link: http://downloads.pumeco.com/brand/pumeco/pro-render/PR75_100v.JPG

Ooops! Forgot the link to the original. Len. (There ya go, play with it a bit in Photoshop etc...)

Rather late, and I quickstepped through a lot (the majority, in fact) of the intervening posts, but... "If you've been in a room with no windows and switched the light off, then you've 'seen' a totally dark shadow (you're in it). If you've ever looked into a deep cave then you've seen a totally dark shadow." No, you haven't. What you've seen (or not seen, however you want to term it) is the absence of light. Shadows can ONLY occur if there is a light source to cast them, and that light source must light something on which the shadow can fall. That's more-or-less the definition of a shadow: an object in the way of a light and blocking it. Without a light source, there are no shadows. There is just (total) darkness, which is a different matter altogether. I can do that easily in PSP: New document, fill with total black. All I need to do. Don't know about the rest of the discussion, just trying to clear up one invalid statement (no offence intended, it's just physics) Cheers, Diolma

Oooooooooo, dangerous game you're playing there Diolma! I tried that one (see post 38), but Peter ain't havin' none of it :-P Len. (lol)

From Chambers Dictionary:

shadow n. shade cast by the interception of light by an object: the dark figure so projected on a surface, mimicking the object: .... (lots more)

So, without a light, and something for it to fall onto, there cannot be a shadow.

Try proving different..:-))

OK, I'm feeling challenging:-))

Am about to try a render of a black cat in a coal-cellar at midnight with no moon...

Or maybe a NVIATWAS in a cave 30 feet underground a long way from the entrance.

Cheers,
Diolma

Ooops: that should read "NVIACWAS" - unless the temple is in the cave ...

Message edited on: 02/16/2006 17:32

OK. I apologise. I have just read though a lot more of this thread and realised that the basic argument/discussion wasn't about the (real world) physics of light/shadows but about the way that Bryce handles light/shadows etc. and what is the best way to compel Bryce to be more realistic. That is a different topic altogether, and one I'm not qualified to comment on. Cheers, Diolma

Dictionary.com Shadow 1. An area that is not or is only partially irradiated or illuminated because of the interception of radiation by an opaque object between the area and the source of radiation. 2. The rough image cast by an object blocking rays of illumination. See Synonyms at shade. 1. Unlit room, the light source is outside the room and the walls are casting shadows in the room (technically speaking :)....just playing devil's advocate) 2. the common idea of a shadow.

InfernalDarkness: *"you seem to think that real light acts in some mystical and unforeseeable way, my friend. that it's not caculable by mathematics, and that photons don't follow physical rules which are in fact computable. this mystical world of light seems very poetic, but doesn't reflect the reality of things at all."*

I may seem to think that to you, but I suspect that you are very alone in the perception.

"PJF certainly did imply such things, Rayraz. more than that, he outright stated that real light can't be simulated on a computer. scroll up."

You've moved on from what might be excused as a subjective perception and onto something that is demonstrably untrue ("scroll up").

"PJF, I meant that REAL radiosity is indeed just like real light, because it actually is real light."

Radiosity is a computational algorithm, and that is the limit of its reality. The term "radiosity" has no meaning outside of this area, despite careless use by computer graphics aficionados. There is no real light in computer graphics, and radiosity algorithms do not operate in a way analogous to real light. They simply make use of some of the characteristics of real light in their mechanism.

"radiosity simluations only work backwards in Bryce."

(There are no radiosity simulations in Bryce.) Radiosity algorithms involve having their "patches" (subdivided surfaces) look into the rest of the scene to examine the brightness of the other patches. Even those patches that are assigned to be initial "emitters" are actually just given an arbitrary brightness level for the other patches to look at. Having patches look out to see the brightness of other patches is "backwards" compared to the movement of real light.

I can't be bothered tonight to argue with you about photon mapping. So for now I'll just quote the specifications for your beloved Mental Ray:
http://www.mentalimages.com/2_1_1_technical/index.html
"photon mapping combines forward and backward ray tracing and simulates all possible light paths, without the need to prepare and combine each effect separately"

"using Final Gather produces emission of light from any surface, based on a huge quantity of possible attributes."

Final Gather uses "data rays" sent from the camera to 'bounce' off of initial pixels and pick up information from secondary pixels. It's a backwards firing, ray-traced process that has no similarity to real light.

"to understand the nature of debate is to understand that i am what I say, and am without equal in this arena.

Definitely without equal.

Len, thanks for your latest. I'll get back with some more comments after I've thought about it all a bit. I'll state the obvious, of course, that post editing doesn't address limitations to control over rendering.

Aldaron, thanks for explaining shadows vis a vis the darkened room - that's exactly right. It is an extreme example but it does illustrate the point.

The room I'm in now is fairly well lit (artificially) but there are many areas of apparent blackness, mostly under objects that stand just off a surface. Yes, I know that some photons are making their way into those dim areas, but if we're talking about realistic renders then we should be attempting to reproduce what we see.

It's interesting to look at the search results for "sunny day" on Google images. Most pictures of brightly lit sunny scenes have a lot of areas of blackness, and it's surprising just how dark some shadows are even out in the open under blue skies. The human eye/brain combination can perceive a much higher range of contrast than photographic film and chip, but even so there's a lot of darkness when the sun is out (especially in my town ;-)).

That was why I started this shadows=x ball rolling. With shadows as low as 50 there'll never be appropriately dark areas in renders that aspire to realism. I guess Len agrees to some extent, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered with the latest exploration (Pro-Render 0.9713 ;-)).

"Rayraz, i don't appreciate you mocking or slandering my work"

I wans't slandering your work, I was just saying it's not exactly a render that's much of a challenge from a "technical render capabilities of your software" point of view. There's not many poly's not many objects for the light to interact, no tricky surfaces for light interaction, no reflective caustics. I'm not saying your work is bad, I'm just saying it's not an image that is representative as demonstration of the power of your render software.
I rendered a logo animation for a client just yesterday in bryce using reflections and soft shadows at 3 minutes per frame on average on premium settings. That's faster then your 5 minute photon rendered image, but to say bryce is the better renderer because of it would not be right, because the logo scene isn't representative for bryces full rendering capabilities.

Furthermore I find my communication is quite decent thank you, if even pumeco (who I've had fierce word exchanges with about PR in the past, so if anyone would have a reason to suspect my words might have to be interpreted as offensive it'd be him) gets the intentions of my statements right 1st time round. I think its you who needs to think a bit further before assuming I'm making bs statements or offending statements :)

"you contradicted yourself in the last two posts heavily"

Example?

quote1 "to understand the nature of debate is to understand that i am what I say, and am without equal in this arena."
reply1 "Definitely without equal."

aaah, spoken like a true master B-) I thought that statement was too arrogant to bother even responding to it but i like how u handle it PJF ;)

@"you are now leaving kansas"-post in general: Amen brother!

"sarcasm, insult, and unkind words leave me agreeing with the general consensus about Renderosity, but i won't blame you for everything, just for those things i just mentioned."

If you find the sarcasm insulting thats your problem. I merely shed light on the absurdness of claiming that theory on how to apply rendering techniques in a program are not to be released to the public in the form of a 'product'.
Books on rendering and lighting, sample scenefiles to demonstrate lighting and rendering settings, online documentation about rendering and lighting, material libraries, lighting rigs, they're all examples of products that do just this!
Pro-render has more then one of these above mentioned contents in it, therefor fits in the same line of products. If you denying these practices you're basically denying a very important branche of the industry and I don't think anyone will believe that the maya community laughs at this branche.
Perhaps you should think through what point I was making before feeling insulted ;)

---

Interesting side-plug

Where are we right now in the industry compared to photon rendering techniques like GI? I think the quote below will proove that the so called standards of GI have not yet fully broke through in the professional graphics segment. As much as TA rendertimes are often not acceptable for "professional animation use" GI is still often not used either, not even by the people who have HUGE renderfarms with more combined renderpower then all the members on this forum added together (with such render power the impact of frames that render for a day on our home desktop pc is ofcourse much smaller)
Now I realize that bryce ain't anywhere near ever catching up with the professional programs, but I think it's safe to say we're all still at the beginning of these techniques. Both bryce amatures and feature film professionals.

---

"Since every movie I have worked on has been a renderman show, GI was not really an option.

I really don't think GI is to heavy for features if used in the right way for the right sort of project. It is something that will creep into it from the ground up. You will start to see it on things like digital sets. Rendering engines such as Vray first started to dominate the archviz world (which BTW may be the largest community in the CG world) and now you can really start to see it more and more in broadcasts such as commercials.

Renderman has the ability to be completely customized and be built for a massive complex pipeline. That is what makes it so powerful for films. It is not just a renderman rendering engine, it becomes a Stealth rendering engine, an I, Robot rendering engine. Once rendering engines like Vray have that ability (and they will), it will be a lot more common on features in big studios. It is either that tools such as Vray have to become more like renderman, or renderman has to start "modernizing".

Either way, I don't think anyone can deny that GI WILL be in the near future of all feature film VFX."

Christopher Nichols
Senior Technical Director
Sony Pictures Imageworks Message edited on: 02/17/2006 04:46

hey, when you're right, you're right...! (I love saying that!) "And I hope it feels good. There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing ouy the shortcomings of others." - Randall from "Clerks"

Maybe I did something wrong, Len, because this didn't take 2 hours using B5 on my 1.5ghz dual G5. I didn't touch any of the settings from your file. Just hit render and let her fly. I'll post the render report separately. ~arry

And here's the render report in case you're interested.

Thanks for doing that arry ;-) Looks a lot darker than the PC version, I'm wondering if the actual 'settings' carried over properly. Could you check to see if 'Camma Correction' was enabled in the Render options? It looks like it's switched-off, and if that's the case then Bryce doesn't carry-over the render settings correctly :-/ As for the speed, it must have been me getting it wrong, I must have been thinking of another render or something. Len. (But they do say that the MAC equivalent is faster than the PC).

*"Could you check to see if 'Camma Correction' was enabled in the Render options?"*

Just checked and Gamma was on. Here's a screen grab of the render options in case there's anything else you want to check.

~arry

Len, quick question. Is there supposed to be a line across the upper third of the image (across middle of monitor model) like in mine above? The part where you clearly see a difference in light/dark shading.

Cheers, yup - looking at that 'every' setting has carried over correctly. I'm wondering if switching Gamma off would darken or lighten it on the MAC? (HINT) - BIG-GRIN As for the line, yes - it's just a reflection of the horizon (I think that's what you're getting at). Hope you'll do another with Gamma switched-off if you get time, cheers ;-) Len. (Pushing it - I know)

I usually render with gamma off so am curious myself. I'll re-render with gamma off so we can both see if there's a difference. Just be forewarned, I do have to step out to walk the dawg. He has his legs crossed, lol.

I'll post the new pic as soon as I can.
~arry

Here's the image with gamma off. In PS, on my monitor, it appears even darker. Render report to follow. This one took slightly longer to render out.