OctaneRender™ Standalone 1.34

[skibbbi]

I do not want to duplicate thread but it's probably a good place to suggest a minor improvement.

Please add a feature sort of materials in view of Selection Pane. With dozens of materials such lack of sorting is very cumbersome. Every time you browse through the entire list.

Sorting would be very easier to work with materials. Especially that first level-Scene is sorted. What's going on?

Once again, please consider my request. After all, it must be a moment to change that

Unless there is some reason why the sorting of materials can not be made​​?

[face]

You have misunderstood. I'm not talking about a gamma difference. I'm talking about a difference in exposure (brightness)

In 1.20 the camera imager controls were not taken into account (exposure/fstop etc) but since 1.30 a new method is used and all these controls affect the saved EXR.

eg. In 1.20 I could use the following camera imager settings:
exposure = 1
fstop = 1
iso = 55
gamma = 2.2
response = LINEAR (no camera response)

The brightness of the output of the tonemapped and untonemapped (once gamma corrected) would match. In other words, photoshop would look just like what I see in octane.

In 1.34 this is no longer the case. I need to adjust the EXPOSURE (not gamma!) of the untonemapped EXR in photoshop by -1.35

I have attached a file showing this is not a gamma problem. You can see the first image from octane, the second is the untonemapped EXR (as shown by default in PS), the third is the EXR with a 1.0 gamma. The second image should look exactly like the first.

Ok, now i understand.
I don´t know, but i think it can´t be a match between tone/untone with a gamma other then 1.0.
In one case, the gamma affects the color and dynamic of the image and in the other case, only the color information.

Remember, that the untonemapped image is an hdr image which has dynamic/intensity. And it is untouched from imager settings like gamma and saturation.
The tonemapped one is only a 32bit image which has only more nuances between values than an 8/16 bit image.


face

[FoolooF]

I've been working on a project in 1.33.
It will not load in 1.34.
It gets part way through loading the meshes and textures, and then it just dumps me back to the desktop.

I am using 32bit version, XP Pro service pack 3 for OS.

[stratified]

Could you post or pm the project with the assets so we can have a look at it?

cheers,
Thomas

[funk]

I don´t know, but i think it can´t be a match between tone/untone with a gamma other then 1.0.

This is incorrect. I could already get them to match in 1.20 with the settings I listed in my previous post.

I can also make them match in PS with a simple exposure adjustment.

My complaint is that the saved EXRs should match the image we see in octane without extra adjustments in photoshop

[Eznit]

Thanks for update.

[abstrax]

Thanks for the update guys, but untonemapped EXRs are still brighter than they should be. If I compare the EXR to a tonemapped PNG in photoshop, I have to add an exposure adjustment layer and lower it by -1.35 to match the PNG.

I mentioned this in the 1.33 thread. Is this going to be fixed?

EXR use a gamma of 2.2, png one of 1.0.
The result is also correct and the same as in Modo and in Softimage...

face

You have misunderstood. I'm not talking about a gamma difference. I'm talking about a difference in exposure (brightness)

In 1.20 the camera imager controls were not taken into account (exposure/fstop etc) but since 1.30 a new method is used and all these controls affect the saved EXR.

eg. In 1.20 I could use the following camera imager settings:
exposure = 1
fstop = 1
iso = 55
gamma = 2.2
response = LINEAR (no camera response)

The brightness of the output of the tonemapped and untonemapped (once gamma corrected) would match. In other words, photoshop would look just like what I see in octane.

In 1.34 this is no longer the case. I need to adjust the EXPOSURE (not gamma!) of the untonemapped EXR in photoshop by -1.35

I have attached a file showing this is not a gamma problem. You can see the first image from octane, the second is the untonemapped EXR (as shown by default in PS), the third is the EXR with a 1.0 gamma. The second image should look exactly like the first.

We do a exposure correction for tonemapped images to keep 46% grey at the same brightness independent of the gamma. If you wouldn't do it, increasing the gamma would brighten the image and decreasing it would darken the image. In other words, the white point of the tonemapped image is dependent on the gamma you specify in the imager settings.

I had a look and in 1.20 the whitepoint of the untonemapped image almost matches the whitepoint of a tonemapped image with the settings you mentioned above (it's ~1% darker). In 1.34 the whitepoint exactly matches the whitepoint of the tonemapped image for all exposure settings as long as gamma is set to 1.0.

I see the following options of what we can do:

• Leave it as it is.
• Make the white point match at gamma 2.2.
• Remove the white point correction. This would cause all scenes to render differently if the gamma was not set to 2.2.

What do you prefer?

[roeland]

GPU failed after switching to Infochannels Kernel
It works, whith geometric normals, failed with Wireframe mode

Does it fail if you try to render the material ball and switch to wireframe mode?

--
Roeland

[funk]

We do a exposure correction for tonemapped images to keep 46% grey at the same brightness independent of the gamma. If you wouldn't do it, increasing the gamma would brighten the image and decreasing it would darken the image. In other words, the white point of the tonemapped image is dependent on the gamma you specify in the imager settings.

I had a look and in 1.20 the whitepoint of the untonemapped image almost matches the whitepoint of a tonemapped image with the settings you mentioned above (it's ~1% darker). In 1.34 the whitepoint exactly matches the whitepoint of the tonemapped image for all exposure settings as long as gamma is set to 1.0.

I see the following options of what we can do:

• Leave it as it is.
• Make the white point match at gamma 2.2.

What do you prefer?

Thanks for looking into this abstrax. I appreciate your time Are there any disadvantages to making the white point match at gamma 2.2?

Personally, I'd just like the saved EXR to match what I see in Octane when I load it into photoshop, no matter what gamma (or other settings) I set.

[abstrax]

Thanks for looking into this abstrax. I appreciate your time Are there any disadvantages to making the white point match at gamma 2.2?

Not really. It's just a design decision.

Personally, I'd just like the saved EXR to match what I see in Octane when I load it into photoshop, no matter what gamma (or other settings) I set.

I edited my previous post and added the a third option: We could remove the white point correction alltogether from tonemapped images. This is how it would look like (note how the image gets darker for gamma < 1 and brighter for gamma > 1):

Gamma 0.5 - no white point correction:

Gamma 1.0 - no white point correction:

Gamma 2.2 - no white point correction:

For comparison, this is the current behaviour, applying a white point correction for tonemapped images:

Gamma 0.5 - with white point correction:

Gamma 1.0 - with white point correction:

Gamma 2.2 - with white point correction: