Open Letter

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Xtra
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 2:34 am

Post by Xtra »

anyway, sunflow is sure looking promising, and people should just stop thinking that java is slow crap.
I refered to a statement I found on the sunflow website. The developer wrote, that the Java based engine is 1.5x - 2x slower. But this was in 2003.
About professionals switching to Blender, i have to agree with LetterRip there. And at least frustrated Lightwavers prefer buying Modo, XSI and C4D rather than using Blender exclusively.
Yes, but it seems that the initiator of this thread uses Blender/YafRay for his professional work.

snow
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by snow »

Almost all of the hobbiests I know use pirated versions of max and one or two use maya. I have that option, but I prefer to stick to Blender since I feel that it's showing improvement at a rate that will overtake those $$ packages in the near future. (Not to mention, I can make & use my artwork legally, has a nicer workflow for me and is OS :wink:). Now I just have to figure out a way to convince the friends!

So, anyway: my point is there's also a whole bunch of hobbiest that needs converting.

emack
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 1:53 am

Post by emack »

LetterRip wrote:

For movie effects and compositing into tv footage - improvements in the the particle tools, and especially work to add volumetric particles and shaders for smoke and flame are desirable. The photorealism needed for movies though is in matching preexisting shots, something which the type of photoreal rendering you are refering to isn't required since the lighting will mostly need to be faked. Shader improvement can certainly be important - there is definitely a need for things like SSS shaders.

Okay, that is enough for now, the point is photoreal isn't nearly as important a consideration as you seem to think it is.

LetterRip
For the standard VFX technique of adding CG elements into a practical shot, this is correct. However, more features are moving toward creating their environment backgrounds with CG. For this type of use, a caching GI solution would be very valuable. This was implemented in a rather direct manner in 'Hellboy' by generating background renders in Brazil, then camera mapping the rendered images onto geometry, which allowed for rapid frame generation.

I think the recent render commits will be a large step in this direction; the cleanup of the render API should allow more 3rd party renderers to be linked to Blender. Most of the next generation of fast GI raytracers (Brazil 2, Vray 1.5, Gelato, etc.) is heading in this direction. Pixie already caches irradiance, and with luck the render API refactor will finally enable a real Renderman compliant link.

Eliot

Yaroslav_L
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Ukraine

Post by Yaroslav_L »

Hi Ton, can you say something about the future of Blender renderer?
________________
Yaroslav Lebidko
"3D XATA"
Interior design. Arch viz.
www.3DXATA.com

wavk
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:58 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by wavk »

Hi Yaroslav_L,

Sometimes internet communication is really irritating. People get easily offended because of language/humor differences.

In your letter you say that the coders probably know that users want all this, and that's true. But there are only so much coders and at the moment the coders are maily working on animation tools.

And Alejandro is very busy with other things right now. You must understand that the developers are doing this in their spare time. Your letter is both demanding and a cry for help.


Well let's start by saying that I've been working full time at a quite large architectural office for 3 years now.

The biggest plus to Blender is speed. I've tried oh so many other packages. And I've done some projects with "REAL" global illumination. But in my experience, it's impossible to use. Architects change their minds too much, renders just take too much time. How much time do you ordinarily get to do the pictures?

You say you want realism. Realism is fine, but I much prefer surrealism. I like to exaggerate. Do the architects you work for want realism or beautiful pictures? I see you do quite some interior work. I can understand you would prefer realism there.

Anyway. I use Ambient Occlusion A LOT. It's unmissable, just for its speed. Something I would like to see is some sort of fake colour bleeding.

I too would like Photon maps and all those other goodies, but in my experience, I would like fake tools much better. Speed, give me speed!

But I too would really like to see some kind of hybrid Ambient Occlusion/Colour bleeding renderer. I've been thinking about an ambient ocllusion algorithm that takes into account colour bleeding from a very low res photon map.

Just another view of an architectural user. Interesting topic, I guess your post was more of a request, but it sometimes sounds a bit too demanding, a language issue maybe ;)

It is true that it is quite difficult to come close to the feeling of some of the renders out there on the net. YafRay does come close, but the speed and the rendering of glass are not particularly suited for architecture.

Wybren van Keulen,

Funny Farm

StompinTom
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:47 pm

Post by StompinTom »

Yaroslav_L wrote: How much pictures made with blender you see? Zero!
Why?
Bacause we can't made quality picture! I don't wonna talk about "wooden soldiers" or two cubes in white room...
are you stupid?!?! thats the most ignorant comment ive heard. take a look around some of the blender galleries (elysiun, blender.org, etc) not to mention some of the users' websites and you will be surprised at what you see.
also if you look back to all the shit that was made with previous blender versions even before it had raytracing, you will see stuff that will still rival the pictures you see on evermotion or cgtalk or raph.com etc.
i think most of the people who constantly bitch about blender not having the latest crazy features havent fully learned to use blender or are just too lazy to take the time to learn good lighting and scene setups. there is a shitload you can do with a few simple spot and point lights. CG is all about faking, otherwise it would be the real thing and we wouldnt have to bother. to say that we cant make quality pictures with blender says alot about your patience and willingness to take the time to learn.
look at the Orange project, and at the teams individual websites, and thats just a small part of the talent that uses blender to create amazing shit.

Toon_Scheur
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:20 pm

Post by Toon_Scheur »

are you stupid?!?!
First, no name calling, second, judging from Yaroslav's work, I couldn't make something like that even at gun point.

He is just plainly mistaken, that's all. Indeed there are images far superior than most big apps pictures, just look around in Elysiun. I think the reign of guys like Basse, Robertt, Endi and @ndy are over. There are some rendered images out there which I wouldn't belief they were made with Blender. Really awesome!

Xtra
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 2:34 am

Post by Xtra »

are you stupid?!?! thats the most ignorant comment ive heard. take a look around some of the blender galleries (elysiun, blender.org, etc) not to mention some of the users' websites and you will be surprised at what you see.
Well, I don't want to answer for Yaroslav_L here, but I think what he meant is architectural renderings in high quality. And those images made with Blender are rare, that's a fact.
i think most of the people who constantly bitch about blender not having the latest crazy features havent fully learned to use blender or are just too lazy to take the time to learn good lighting and scene setups.
Maybe you're right concerning laziness to learn good lighting. But GI rendering is a fairly old feature, in fact I don't remember even one render engine that does not support GI, apart from Blender. Besides: a good GI setup can create an illumination wich is hardly to fake with conventional lighting. In his book "Lighting and rendering" Jeremy Birns wrote, that with every additional surface and corner, with every additinal object the number of lights will increase exponentially. Even when you concetrate your effort on the most important parts of your scene, the number of lights will get unmanageable in complex images. Or it will look a little bit unnatural. I think for the sake of speed most professionals will accept this.
look at the Orange project, and at the teams individual websites, and thats just a small part of the talent that uses blender to create amazing shit.
Hm ... now I'm sure you misunderstood him.

StompinTom
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:47 pm

Post by StompinTom »

alright. my apologies.
from an architectural viz point of view its true, there arent that many high quality examples using Blender and physical correctness is probably key in that area, something that Blender doesnt have. how i interpreted that comment (Bacause we can't made quality picture!) was in relation to CG in general, of which architectural visualisation is only a small part and where physical correctness definitely isnt the norm.
because of the way the requests for features were phrased, i took them as another 'why cant Blender have a magic button that makes my scene look amazing', which gets frustrating when you look at, for example, @ndy's old work done without any raytracing or GI. i jumped the gun and for that im sorry, i didnt mean it as a personal attack (your work is damn good) but rather i reacted more to the comment. maybe its the language barrier, the gist of things getting lost in the literal translation.
for architectural purposes, being an arch. student myself, i agree there should be at least an option of physically based materials/lights/whatnot. Maxwell is amazing, but the workflow from Blender sucks IMO since there is no export script (yet... hopefully well see one) not to mention there is a pricetag.
last i heard, Yafray is being recoded from scratch using a physically based model (rumor: sort of like Maxwell? any info anyone?) which would give users a good choice between maybe a faster internal renderer and a physically based external renderer. to forsake one for the other would be to limit the applications of Blender.

Yaroslav_L
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Ukraine

Post by Yaroslav_L »

Why U can't understand, that we can have old raytracer and new GI engine for some people? Or best integration YafRay into Blender (anisotropic shader for eximple). Or some YafRay recoding because it's so "dirty" for interior rendering...
________________
Yaroslav Lebidko
"3D XATA"
Interior design. Arch viz.
www.3DXATA.com

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri »

I don't get your point.

If there was some code somewhere that could be pluged into blender that would render photorealistic then it would be there tomorrow.

But this is not so. There is no gpl code that renders a 3d scene like it's a photo. This means somebody has to start writting it, and he needs to write this code that nobody has for free and give the code for free to the world.
Then,... it also needs to be 100% compatible with current blender code.
I don't know if you know anything about coding, but the datastructure of blender is not the same as of maya or as wings or as 3d studio. You probably have noticed when exporting files.
If this free photorealistic renderer is not created for blender then somebody needs to spend hundreds of hour of his free time into getting this code to fit in blender.

An open letter like yours does not really help to get this done. It's not that the blender foundation does not know what you want. It just does not have the people to implement your request. So it doesn't really matter that from all the human resources that are available your request is the most boring one. As I've stated many times before, the focus of blender is on art, not on computer aided design.

Furthermore, there are multiple paths developed to getting what you want done. One is preparing the material structure of blender to export it to other (opensource) render engines.
Last edited by joeri on Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alvaro
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 6:45 pm

Post by Alvaro »

Yaroslav, you actually make commercial work.
Neither Blender nor Yafray seem to fulfill all your requirements.
My advice: save some money from your incomes and go Max/Vray.

:wink:

wavk
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:58 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by wavk »

Well YafRay being dirty for interior rendering is partly because you don't take enough samples... It's slow, I know, but that's the price.

An integration of YafRay would of course be perfect!

Just the lighting part of YafRay could be included, as a render layer. That would be the end, an overlay radiosity pass. That would give you all the joy of Blender's flexible texturing/shading and add-on radiosity. That way, we'll have full control over the intensity of the radiosity. This would fit in nicely with the new render pass/layers that Ton is coding now.

The way I sometimes add YafRay radiosity to my images is the same thing. I've made myself a nice little script that renders out a YafRay cached radiosity render, of the scene, but with all materials turned simple white. This renders quite fast. I then overlay the resulting picture over the blender render. At the moment YafRay doesn't work anymore with the latest Blender (on my computer), so that's not good at the moment.

Without texturing and advanced materials, the YafRay renderer is quite fast. The only, BIG, drawback of this trick is the lack of colour bleeding. Which is kindof a shame...

What do you think?

Have fun,

Wybren van Keulen

Yaroslav_L
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Ukraine

Post by Yaroslav_L »

OK! I want to thank all of U guys, for help and advising.
I don't wonna to discuss abuot it more, but I KNOW!
I know that nowbody can't resist (refuse) from technical progress!
For example: you still use stereo cesette player, or mp3?
And come the time, when Blender will have GI. But!
But other 3D soft will have more new features.
Look at Equinox3D for example. They have not perfect modeling instruments, but in News section we can read: GI coming...
All modern renderers have GI (or 90%). What for they coders do it?
OK. I stop discuss abuot it.
But I want to saw your works on Blender gallery.
Thanks and sorry...
________________
Yaroslav Lebidko
"3D XATA"
Interior design. Arch viz.
www.3DXATA.com

Auralis
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 8:27 pm

Post by Auralis »

Screw yafray, a nice and stable renderman export will be of signifigant greater use.

Post Reply