I know this is the Modeling forum. But there's no rendering forum so I picked this one. I have tried every thing from Maya to 3dwings. And everything in between. And the best rendering engine I've seen is in Lightwave. It beats MAYA's default rendering engine in my opinion. But even Lightwave's rendering engine isn't realistic enough. If I create a simple ball prop. I should be able to render it so it looks like a real Ball without any textures applied to it. All the programs we have now make cartoony type images. Yet the movies like star wars are able to render fantastically realistic images. What gives? Who is hiding the secret to creating a truly realistic rendering engine? I know It exists. I've seen the results in lower budget work such as "Walking with Dinosaurs". I have tons of good modeling and animating programs. What I really need a is a top notch. Realistic rendering engine to render them in. So they don't look like cartoons. ScottA

I think you hit it right on the head, Lightwave is a good one. Also, everything has a texture of some type, even a simple grey ball. One of the keys is the fact the in real life, we never have simple color lights. Try using dirty lights and see how that looks.

Inperfection is the key to true perfection. ~EA

Lighting, texturing and camera effects such as depth of field...ElectricAardvark is right on with his comment! We'd all love a "render photoreal" button, however this doesn't exist, because every aspect in every photo is different, the lights, the colors, the angles, the lense settings on the camera...getting a photoreal render takes a lot of work, and a lot of practice. Lighting alone will buy you alot in the line of realism, closely followed by textures ;) -Modulok-

Textures just cover up for a poor rendering engine. I have a ball that my dog plays with. It's red. No textures. No bumps. No color patterns. No surface variations at all (well...except for teeth marks. ;-)) I can't render it in any program and have it look as real as the real thing. I know lighting is very important. But there is definately something special these film people are using that makes things look much more realistic than what we use to render images. Nobody will admit it. But I know it's true. There is a special kind of rendering engine that professionals use. And it ain't packaged with any off the shelf software. I would love to know how to get my hands on that elusive technology. ScottA

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=26335&Start=1&Artist=Spike&ByArtist=Yes

Those images are great. But I don't think this is the way the "industry" does things. I know all the "tricks" we have to do to get our off the shelf programs to render realistic images. But I don't think the film makers bother with all of that. And are using something much different than anything that's on the public market. I could be wrong. But my gut tells me there are much better rendering engines availabe but aren't being sold for whatever reason. I've seen some really basic objects rendered in movies that look really great with no texturing or shinny materials to make them look real. I feel like we always get the poor man's rendering engine. Reguardless of the price of the program. ScottA

Scott, I feel your pain, but am telling you for a fact that these are the same tools they are using. Maya LightWave C4D Etc.. They just know how to use them well. That's why they have that job. Think about it this way. You are looking at the best of the best when you see movies. What renderer do you use?

Listen to the wise words of spike ;)

Yep, Spike's right. Its not the rendering engine, it's how it is used. Renderman and Final Render are awesome rendering engines, but it takes an artful user to set them up right. Take for example the coffee cup beside me. It is your typical white ceramic mug with a little coffee at the bottom. What would it take to render it correctly? Well, it's somewhat shiny so I would need an environment to reflect on it. I notice a slight shade of tan on the inside of the cup. This is from the light reflecting on the coffee at the bottom back onto the inside of it. I'm sitting under flourescent lighting, let's say 3 fixtures. It causes a very soft, slight shadow on my desk. How is the computer going to know about all these things if I don't instruct it? I find the two things that make a rendered image look cartoony is over saturated colors (i.e. not gray), and hard dark shadows. The Pros definately worry about this, that is why the hire lighting and art directors to oversee their work. -Rhettro

Another thing. ILM and those types, have entire lighting teams. Several people, who's ONLY job is to light a scene. Another department does ONLY textures, another ONLY shadows...ect. Set back and get into some of the behind the scenes episodes on your DVD's. Alot of them show you step by step the rendering to finished frames process.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=257671&Start=1&Artist=pearce&ByArtist=Yes&For

It's possible to do a realistic render in any program- radiosity isn't necessary, and most procedural effects can be faked in Photoshop within a few hours. The main trick is getting the textures right, closely followed by hi-detailing the models (even non-organics often benefit from some subdividing, etc.). I've never seen lights as all that important, but soft shadows and radiosity are nice when you can get them. But by far the hardest bit is textures. A model you can generally tell what's wrong, and there's usually a simple solution- a texture has to look exactly like it does in life, or it just won't look right. Your best bet is to have a picture of the texture type you want handy, and base a procedural (no mapping, and thus better) off that (like one does with a complex from-life model). Use a color picker to get the predominant colors off the picture, for one thing.

"...radiosity isn't necessary, and most procedural effects can be faked in Photoshop within a few hours." In a production environment a few hours is a lot of money spent... and in the event that it is an animation, post production with photoshop on every frame would take an eternity. Just do it right the first time ;) "I've never seen lights as all that important..." The entire purpose of a render engine is to simulate how light reacts with objects in the scene. Extreme attention to lighting is fundimental to a photoreal render. This is what separates the high end render engines from others; its ability to accurately similate real world light interactions in a 3D scene. ;) -Modulok-

Look, Pixar fakes reflections, ILM uses dirt maps to roughen up their robots and vehicles, WETA Digital uses pictures of fire on cards to simulate flame, and they all STILL have to do hours of post work to make it look "real", you can't honestly believe it works any other way. Most films are shot within the first 8 months to a year or so of production and the rest is all post work and special effects. When you consider most films take two years to make, that's a lot of post production and a lot of tweaking renders. Good lighting can make a bad model with crappy textures look great and while it's true that radiosity isn't always used, wanted, or needed, it does help in evening out the light in an indoor scene which helps make the overall image more real. I suggest taking a look at Jeremy Brim's book on lighting as it will help you understand why it's so important. Oh, and everything, even the smoothest surface known to man, has some form of texture to it. That smoothness in and of itself is a texture by definition. So, go out there and find books on the studios or the films that you like and see what you can learn.

"you can't honestly believe it works any other way. Most films are shot within the first 8 months to a year or so of production and the rest is all post work and special effects." Yes. I believe it IS done a different way. :-) Sorry. It's not ALL because the guys know what they're doing. They are obviously using special equipment. I've seen it in action. I forget what show I was watching. But I saw a guy render a dinosaur with no colors or textures on it. And it blew away anything I see rendered with the junk we use. I didn't realise how defensive you guys would get about your rendering engines. And though this thread isn't quite a flame war. It does have a dark tone to it. So I think we should probably just stop and go back to talking about modeling techniques. And I'll keep wishing for a better rendering engine to myself. :-) ScottA

It's all in the setup,

You should have a look at some of the sites that sell this stuff and see where they are using it.

Take this simple photo as a example. I think this can be done with most of the ones we have been talking about here.

Bye.

wtf???? O.o secret tool?, for crying out loud

I usually set the 'photo-realitic' button to about 96%. I then set my 'real atmosphere' at 100%, import a custom solar system so that all of the shadows from the planets cast proper shadows via the authinic sun at the center of the system. The I set the planetational orbits to default and select the time zone that I will be working in. I usually leave the engine running for a while so that I can let the factories in the city next to mine add a little pollution to the air for added realism. Then just click 'Render' Hehe

Oh yeah.... ? Well j00 sux, MY secret tool ownz j00 all ! ;p

Of all the people on Renderosity, only ivyroses has ever seen MY secret tool. ^_^

Well, Scott, I didn't mean to darken your day or anything its just that I've spoken with people in the biz, I've spoken with the software developers themselves and I've yet to hear of folks saying much of anything different. There are a few places that create their own proprietary software, Pixar has Renderman (...but you can buy that), and Dreamworks PDI created their own render engine for ANTS and SHREK but truly, many of the off the shelf items can acheive results similar to those seen in film. Just as an example, WETA harped on and on about their "Massive" program for crowd creation/control. This program is now available to the public. We...I...didn't want to come off as sensitive about my render engine as to be honest, my renderer sucks ass compared to MAX's or LW's or Maya's. Heck, Bryce even has it beat. However, I know that if I took the time to set the scene right and light it properly, I could get a image to match photography. So I'm only trying to express the fact that it's not the program so much as what you do with it and I'm sorry you felt you had to leave the discussion. I would have rather you stayed so I could better understand where you were coming from and what prompted your comment to begin with. I too will leave the discussion now and I hope anyone who drops in after will see the best of it instead of the worst.

No sweat Teyon. The thread was not going anywhere productive. I won't find what I'm looking for here (in this thread). Someone has given me some good info about industry equipment. So I'm going to research that for a while. I'm not going away mad. I'm just going away. ;-) ScottA

Cool. If you find what you were looking for let us know. It may be somewhat late in all this but I hear Mental Ray is good. Happy hunting.

haha hey i think i can shed some light on that elusive stuff you were asking about be prepared to be bored LOL ;) first off the rneders your seeing from ilm are actauly broken down to some extent for example the ball your talking aobut doesnt have textures except for the teeth mark etc it probaly has some specularty marks etc but even given the spec maps and the bumps applied its still missing something real i feel the pain heres where thomas knoll and other ilm old timers come into play with some very sweet propitary software One of the best things IlM an Weta do to there films is called digital grading Its way to long and boring to explain here but you can find alot on thenet about it im sure its simply a way to alter colors and light after a film has been made and makes all the difrence in the world ifyou look at a before and after shot its like looking at a actor on film with no make up and standrd lighting vs a model shoot where theres perfect lighting tons of make up and no flaws That alone doesnt mean squat though its the combination of things one huge thing i have seen ilm do is render the scenes with lighting which looks good but not quite real like your saying wven with perfect maps and models but then volumetrics and effects are actauly renedered sepreate and composited in the things like dust particles clouds etc make the biggest difrence ivbe seen get the star wars 2 video it comes with a second disc and on that disc is a before and after shot where it takes you through smooth shaded animatic to completed scene youll see what a difrence the digital grading and volumetrics make! matte painings help tons too I know your probaly thinking that there isnt dust coluds etc in everything but take a look at the dvd of starwars youll see what i mean ok now for a soultion i think we can get you to the point where you can render a realistic ball ill try to do a tut with reflections and lighting set up etc in lw in here this weekend feelinglike crap now for now you may want to try downloading a free plugin call hdr shop that will help but not cure your problem

oh yeah one realy cool tool that some studios use ! listen to this i want this program for home use badly its like deep paint for premire man say you have a character in a rendered scecne already on tape and you have him sitting next to a window ! the technical director comes up and says hey theres sunlight blaring in the window but no reflection at all on the characcter ! this is a problem like i said its already on film , well this software is made so that he simply paints on a specular light Just one fram of the video tape and then the highlight is apllied until he wants it gone takes like 5 seconds how cool would this be !

Ok Travis...I've got a question about Matte's...(perhaps I should have started a new thread...) As I understand it Matte's are just a PS (or other choice app) painting on a 2D canvas...I suppose one could use 3D software to generate some of the objects on the matte and then composite them into the 2D Matte. But See the flag in the last one? Durring the corse of an animation that would have to blow in the wind would it not...how? and the stuff like the clouds and the sunlight...I guess I just know nothing about Matte's and how to use them heh. Thanks -Modulok-

Well, Mod, most mattes are exactly that...mattes. They don't move. For when the situation calls for an animated matte, you have lots of options, you can use stock footage and play it in the background (or create your own), you can also do a little Parralax scrolling like they do in videogames. 3DWorld actually had a neat little tutorial on using Combustion (a compositing program) and it showed you how to add movement to stills in very simple and basic ways that could also be edited over time if required. The same rule for rendering applies here : Getting the image you want requires postwork. There's no way around that, even if we're talking about the moving picture. In the case of the flag, you'd have it on it's own layer and thus be able to scale and stretch it as needed. You could also instead have an animated flag (filmed or made) on it's own layer and still be able to perform whatever compositing (overlay, multiply, adding dust,etc.) you'd need too.

Thanks T, I guess using digital (from a photo or hand made...or mixed) matte's would save one tons of time when trying to create an environment for your characters...which is probably the entire reason for them heh. Kinda cool I guess, uniform lighitng of the mattes would be the next thing I guess one would have to worry about...Onward to looking up all about digital mattes ;) Thanks -Modulok-

Sorry.I have nothing to offer but would like an e-baot to this thread. Thanks Tom

Good Lawd. What a difference. WOW This is fasinating stuff. Thanks Tom

Thanks Travis, what's the story behind the pic you posted? Do I smell a WIP of some industrial factory perhaps? -Modulok-

Oo..maybe I shoudl wait till your done posting lol.

Damn thats cool, Results like the lower pic of the factory above would be easily possible straight from the render I assume? (well, when I say easily I mean with a hell of a lot of hours put in ;P -Modulok-

This iis theh thing to understand as well often times the computer will give true colors even when light perfectly ! meaning that those colors very rarley are that truein life if you look at the red ball in the grass on a sunny day theres probaly actauly very litle true red more cyan pink etc but we still know its a red ball ablve in mullins pic i know its a paintng but in the movie youd probaly be fooled becuase its painted in a way using lighting that your mind would average for an example if you look at a brown or black horse on a bright day from a distance you know what color is a mix of brown and black, but if you look closer youll see the averged saturation color is greyish. If you painted a grey hoarse with tocuhes of brown and black instead it would look more realsitic to the mind than just thinking theres a black horse and painting it black same with the pic above ,look at it for just a second and you think thats a green room but then take it in to photoshop and youll see theres very lil true green at all but more of an averaged colors combined kinda getting off the deep end here so ill stop but just some things to consider

haha mod could you imagine the lighting nightmare it would take to set up that pic if it were a render though one great thing about mattes is instant results quickly im betting there would be well over 200 lights if that were a render err each with its own settings etc

"i know its a paintng but in the movie youd probaly be fooled becuase its painted in a way using lighting that your mind would average for an example " Could this be achieved with texture baking? In other words does texture baking take the prorties of the environment interacting with a texture and present it that way in another application or render engine? Tom <~~curious

Surface baking is a great trick as well but then again its only part of the whole picture you still need to set the lights etc because basicly your just baking the lighting into the surface and youd still loose the perspective desaturation etc of the pic you can get an ideo of what i mean by looking at the pic see how objects further in the background are less detailed and more destaurated Im not saying this cant be done in a render just that it adds alot to the render process that is often over looked you could used depth of field to blur out some detail in the background and volumetric lighting etc surface baking but then again rememeber if you bake the lighting inot the surface your stuck with just that light set and animation then becomes a huge pain !

Professionals use so many techniques, it's ridiculous. The meshes they use are quite nice, but not as always spectacular as you might think. Great textures, great lighting, a capable renderer. That's the basics. Now there is the ever-growing HDRI's, and the oldest technique in the book, multi-pass rendering. Just using a slightly growing knowledge of lighting, multi-pass rendering and faking HDRI's, I can do fairly good work. In Bryce. AgentSmith

"I have a ball that my dog plays with. It's red. No textures. No bumps. No color patterns. No surface variations at all (well...except for teeth marks." That can't be. Everything has textures and bumps and variations in color and variations in the way light reflects from it. You just haven't looked closely enough. No, pros don't have any special rendering engines. What they do have is extreme skill at texturing, using grungs maps to 'dirty' textures up and to break up specularity after having created custom specularity maps. They know how to create wear on objects. They focus on details your eye sees but your brain doesn't normally recognize. But without those details, things just don't look right. There are teams that do nothing but texture the models other teams have built, and then pass those onto teams that do nothing but lighting. It's not impossible to get realistic renders. You just have to take the time necessary to learn. The one bit of advice I can pass on is a bit of advice that was given to me by a high level 3D guy. Pay attention to real life details. Study objects in real life. Get a magnifying glass if you need it to see the details. The problem with 3D is that objects are too perfect. Nothing is perfect in real life. Everything has dents and bumps and dirt and wear and imperfections.

Perhaps I should amend my first statement- I don't make a bit deal out of lights, because they're rarely much more complicated than picking out the color and putting them where they belong, and I can get a good approximation 99% of the time. I also use a lot of artificial light sources, which helps. The "secret tool" isn't software, it's just an aquired skill from years of experience. Two years ago, when I was the stupidest of stupid newbies, I would have looked at what I'm doing now, and sworn that it had been done with a whole slew of advanced plugins and render tools, and taken days. Now, I'm doing sub-photorealistic work, and the only additional piece of equipment I use any significant amount of the time is an inverse duplicator. It's simply that I'm reasonably (but still not entirely) well-versed in my decrepit old copy of a five-year-old raytracer/modeler, and have learned some new techniques. I can already get a reasonably close approximation of photorealistic with a program that's so old that the company that made it is defunct. I can already make any component out of that reactor scene in ten minutes or under, with a program that's effectively abandonware. TELL me you can't do any better with your $3500 copy of MAX or tooled-out version of LightWave. If you really can't do it, if it's really impossible with all that software muscle, by all means, let's trade. You don't need anything more advanced than Ray Dream Studio, sans radiosity, disp maps, fully functional aura/light effects, and ability to go beyond a million polys without taking a day between mouse-clicks. I'd almost find this thread offensive, it's so silly- it's like a little rich boy who got a Lamborghini at age 16, complaining that he can't go anywhere. Those of us who have to walk on foot don't do too shabby, excuse me. I'm serious about that trade, though. I can send you over a copy of RDS any time, you just mail me those MAX CDs. You'll be able to do photorealistic finally- you'll love it.

Who said it's secret software? Not me. I said "Special". I was just asking what the studios use. Not only do I have RayDream. But well..................... 1.)Metacreations put me on their web site permanently because they thought I was so good with it. 2.)Computer Arts Magazine put my stuff in their magazine. 3.)Metacreations "ASKED" me to join their BETA program. 4.)etc,etc,etc........ ALL of these people came to ME! Let me repeat that........They came to me! Computer Arts Magazine actually called me. How many companies (publicly traded or not) have invited YOU into their world based only because of your work? So UMMM....I'm not axactly NEW to this stuff. And even If I was. There was no reason to call me childish for asking if there was a better rendering engine out there. Frankly Some of the replies have been low level personal attacks. Please just drop it and go away so I don't have any reason to come back here and defend myself for not doing anything wrong in the first place. I'll never make the mistake of posting in this forum again. So please just let me leave already. Thanks. ScottA

Sorry to hear your taking it that way scott, I agree that there were some un-neede post here that, sad to say were a bit insultive. But for the most part we're just trying to help you out really. The two "big boy renders" Pixars Photorealistic Renderman Mental Images Mental Ray -Modulok-