Hark the Angel Sings (WIP) first animation render test

[vanlicht]

Hi All,

Thanks to Bazuka's development in maya2octane script, the animation render is possible now in Octane.
Here's quick style test for the thesis film, Hark the Angel Sings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEDqKz4wESI

(no textures, only with proxy geometries, animation is still in blocking stage...and the background
should be a church interior, instead of sky color.)
The intention is to see the overall look, the render time, and see if the grain is affecting the visual.
The result is still pretty far away from what I want eventually, but still is a good start.
(Can't wait to have the MLT and self-emitter integrated.)

Some Details:
Render: Raytracing
Light: Daylight
Test Resolution: 720*405
Sample: 500
Render time per frame: approx. 80 sec per frame.

**Critics are always welcome!
Cheers,
Thomas

[vanlicht]

It occurs to me when I am trying out the maya2octane plugin.
1. Control of DOF:
I was wondering how to get the interactivity for controlling and animating DOF
In Maya, thanks to Bazuka, now both normal "camera" and "camera+target" both work.
I assume to get the DOF control, "Camera + target" could set where I want to focus point to be,
however, there's no way of telling whether it is really in focus, especially if I want to play
shallow or deep DOF.

@Radiance: is there a plan to integret animating/ setting key and time slider in DOF Octane Render?
Or a better approach to communicate btw master application and Octane in this matter?

2. Camera Motion Blurr:
I understand that at the moment OC only supports camera motion blurr, and the object motion blurr will come later at beta3.
Though, currently when both camera and the object are traveling at similar speed, the motion blurr is super crazy,
while in theory it shouldn't since they are both traveling. I was wondering if it is normal.

3. Argument for the importance of integrating spotlight/ cg light, in addition to the physical correct self-emitter
I observed this relative debate in the forum. However, after the test render, I realize the importance of having the cg light
if possible. My argument is for cinematic purpose.
Say, even in real world when shooting a film, DP no only use those spotlight (tungsten lights, etc.) or area lights, or florescent lights
for photography purpose. I assume that can be simulated utilizing self-emitter with correct parameter. Though, at the same time they
also use those bouncers to reflect additional light to the face/ eyes. They also use screens, jells, or even stockings in front of light source
to create different effect. We do use different cheats even in real world lighting! Then, I would say it totally makes sense to apply the
same spirit to digital rendering, not only biased rendering, but equally beneficial for physically correct renderer like Octane.

It makes sense in a way that if I want to make a diffuse bouncer light on the side of the Nun or Donkey boy's face for instance, to use
the light to direct the viewers, eyes, then if here the effect is not enough, I will have to, make a poly plane and place it in Maya blindly,
load the obj to Octane, and render, and see it doesn't work and go back to Maya, etc. I sort of don't see the point of doing this.
Or I will have to build a light blocker, physically correct and then move it around in Octane? well, both sounds fine to me, but it just sounds
efficiency favors the cg light for this purpose.

Again, this is just my observation and two cents I caught my thought when testing out this render pipeline...
which is definitely awesome by the way, just imagine where the improvement is leading all us to, or the solution that is in the plan
we just haven't heard of it yet.

Cheers,
Thomas

[radiance]

It occurs to me when I am trying out the maya2octane plugin.
1. Control of DOF:
I was wondering how to get the interactivity for controlling and animating DOF
In Maya, thanks to Bazuka, now both normal "camera" and "camera+target" both work.
I assume to get the DOF control, "Camera + target" could set where I want to focus point to be,
however, there's no way of telling whether it is really in focus, especially if I want to play
shallow or deep DOF.

@Radiance: is there a plan to integret animating/ setting key and time slider in DOF Octane Render?
Or a better approach to communicate btw master application and Octane in this matter?

2. Camera Motion Blurr:
I understand that at the moment OC only supports camera motion blurr, and the object motion blurr will come later at beta3.
Though, currently when both camera and the object are traveling at similar speed, the motion blurr is super crazy,
while in theory it shouldn't since they are both traveling. I was wondering if it is normal.

3. Argument for the importance of integrating spotlight/ cg light, in addition to the physical correct self-emitter
I observed this relative debate in the forum. However, after the test render, I realize the importance of having the cg light
if possible. My argument is for cinematic purpose.
Say, even in real world when shooting a film, DP no only use those spotlight (tungsten lights, etc.) or area lights, or florescent lights
for photography purpose. I assume that can be simulated utilizing self-emitter with correct parameter. Though, at the same time they
also use those bouncers to reflect additional light to the face/ eyes. They also use screens, jells, or even stockings in front of light source
to create different effect. We do use different cheats even in real world lighting! Then, I would say it totally makes sense to apply the
same spirit to digital rendering, not only biased rendering, but equally beneficial for physically correct renderer like Octane.

It makes sense in a way that if I want to make a diffuse bouncer light on the side of the Nun or Donkey boy's face for instance, to use
the light to direct the viewers, eyes, then if here the effect is not enough, I will have to, make a poly plane and place it in Maya blindly,
load the obj to Octane, and render, and see it doesn't work and go back to Maya, etc. I sort of don't see the point of doing this.
Or I will have to build a light blocker, physically correct and then move it around in Octane? well, both sounds fine to me, but it just sounds
efficiency favors the cg light for this purpose.

Again, this is just my observation and two cents I caught my thought when testing out this render pipeline...
which is definitely awesome by the way, just imagine where the improvement is leading all us to, or the solution that is in the plan
we just haven't heard of it yet.

Cheers,
Thomas

Hi,

1: The camera focal distance can be animated. (don't know if this is yet present in bazuka's script though). however it does'nt work yet in RC1, it will in RC2.

2: This is normal. Octane has no instances so it has no concept of moving objects, so only the camera moves. Once we have instances in beta3 this will be possible. and we can then also add instance/transform motion blur for objects.

3: I won't implement them. It all sounds simple, but afaik they make developing a physically based renderer a pain, they complicate all algorithms so it takes 3x as much work to develop the core engine. More light types = more checks = slower code. I've been through this experience while managing the luxrender project, and i've learned from it that it's better for everyone to not have any delta lightsources. (eg non emitters)

Radiance

[face]

This post, can deleted.
Wrong answer