.
- Octane Render oreaches beta ... thought I'd have some of that ... no Anamorphic Rendering ... but hey it was a beta ... fair enough.
- Octane Render reaches version 1 ... still no Anamorphic Rendering ... damn!
- Octane Render reaches version 2 ... does anyone at Otoy even know some film makers need Anamorphic rendering to match-up footage to their lens?
- Octane Render reaches version 3 ... WTF ... still no mention of it!!!
"State-of-the-art" it isn't, because I'm pretty sure "state-of-the-art" would have simple bread and butter freatures such as control over the lens geometry. How on earth are filmmakers and Indies who use Anamorphic lenses supposed to match-up their footage with this thing?
Why is it so hard to implement Anamorphic rendering?
What's the hold up, you could at least give us the ability to change the aspect of the virtual film plane!
It's about time this thing had the ability to be matched to any lens!
Bottom line is I'm glad I didn't upgrade to version 2, and I won't be upgrading to version 3 either, not unless this stuff comes in a point update.
Sometimes developers can get sidetracked by all the flashy stuff, and not realise there are bread and butter essentials still missing.
Please, Otoy, for crying out loud, add Anamorphic rendering abilities!
.
No Anamorphic Rendering ... Again!!!
Forum rules
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB
Please add your OS and Hardware Configuration in your signature, it makes it easier for us to help you analyze problems. Example: Win 7 64 | Geforce GTX680 | i7 3770 | 16GB
In Brigade I have seen OSL create almost any camera geometry imaginable. I expect that also may be possible in v3 since it is based in the same code. OSL In Octane 3 Is a huge feature for exactly this kind of extensibility.
You mean defining a pixel aspect ratio for the thin-lens camera? We can try to squeeze it into one of the 2.x releases. Shouldn't take long. Just to be sure: Post-effects should also apply this aspect ratio, right?pumeco wrote:.
- Octane Render oreaches beta ... thought I'd have some of that ... no Anamorphic Rendering ... but hey it was a beta ... fair enough.
- Octane Render reaches version 1 ... still no Anamorphic Rendering ... damn!
- Octane Render reaches version 2 ... does anyone at Otoy even know some film makers need Anamorphic rendering to match-up footage to their lens?
- Octane Render reaches version 3 ... WTF ... still no mention of it!!!
"State-of-the-art" it isn't, because I'm pretty sure "state-of-the-art" would have simple bread and butter freatures such as control over the lens geometry. How on earth are filmmakers and Indies who use Anamorphic lenses supposed to match-up their footage with this thing?
Why is it so hard to implement Anamorphic rendering?
What's the hold up, you could at least give us the ability to change the aspect of the virtual film plane!
It's about time this thing had the ability to be matched to any lens!
Bottom line is I'm glad I didn't upgrade to version 2, and I won't be upgrading to version 3 either, not unless this stuff comes in a point update.
Sometimes developers can get sidetracked by all the flashy stuff, and not realise there are bread and butter essentials still missing.
Please, Otoy, for crying out loud, add Anamorphic rendering abilities!
.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
.
First off, thanks for looking at this, I really appreciate it!
I believe the most basic way to implement Anamorphic rendering would indeed be to allow us to change the aspect of the virtual film plane, I'll try to explain this the best I can.
Imagine a normal scene and you are facing head-on to a cube. You set the camera so that it is out of focus and do a render so that you end up with a render of a cube that is out of focus.
Now, do another render, but this time, stretch the cube horizontally so that it is twice as wide as it is tall. Do the same out of focus render on the elongated cube. Now, the thing is, the out of focus bokeh is identical in both images, the only difference is that the cube has changed. But we need to reverse the effect, and to do that, all we need to do is take our second render and compress it so that our elongated cube becomes a perfect cube again.
And what do you notice now that the cube has been pushed back to shape?
Exactly, the bokeh has become stretched vertically, you now have Anamorphic bokeh because that's how Anamorphic works.
I don't understand the technicalities of how you would go about giving us controls to actually match a specific lens, but an Anamorphic 2X lens basically means that it compresses the image 2X. You can put an Anamorphic projector lens in front of, say, a 50mm prime, and it will have the same effect as those tests I just described. It's just a guess, but if we were able to match basic prime lenses and in addition to that, be able to adjust the aspect of the film plane, then that would likely be the recipe for matching an Anamorphic lens rig.
But even without being able to match specific lenses, I think the ability to simply change the aspect of the virtual film plane will allow Anamorphic bokeh in Octane. It's not just good for people wanting to match footage to real Anamorphic lenses, it's also visually more interesting when you simply render with Anamorphic bokeh, it looks extremely cinematic - and the Anamorphic look is a world away from the standard bokeh you see everywhere. Anamorphic footage also has a strange distortion when you pan around, but that's all part of the look and appeal of it.
Anyway, two Octane devs in my thread, I think it must be Christmas
But yup, it would be fantasic if you could add this ability, it looks amazing, and it's necessary to match proper filmmaker's lenses anyway.
I hope I've explained it well enough, but there's tons of stuff about Anamorphic on the net if I haven't made much sense
.
First off, thanks for looking at this, I really appreciate it!
I believe the most basic way to implement Anamorphic rendering would indeed be to allow us to change the aspect of the virtual film plane, I'll try to explain this the best I can.
Imagine a normal scene and you are facing head-on to a cube. You set the camera so that it is out of focus and do a render so that you end up with a render of a cube that is out of focus.
Now, do another render, but this time, stretch the cube horizontally so that it is twice as wide as it is tall. Do the same out of focus render on the elongated cube. Now, the thing is, the out of focus bokeh is identical in both images, the only difference is that the cube has changed. But we need to reverse the effect, and to do that, all we need to do is take our second render and compress it so that our elongated cube becomes a perfect cube again.
And what do you notice now that the cube has been pushed back to shape?
Exactly, the bokeh has become stretched vertically, you now have Anamorphic bokeh because that's how Anamorphic works.
I don't understand the technicalities of how you would go about giving us controls to actually match a specific lens, but an Anamorphic 2X lens basically means that it compresses the image 2X. You can put an Anamorphic projector lens in front of, say, a 50mm prime, and it will have the same effect as those tests I just described. It's just a guess, but if we were able to match basic prime lenses and in addition to that, be able to adjust the aspect of the film plane, then that would likely be the recipe for matching an Anamorphic lens rig.
But even without being able to match specific lenses, I think the ability to simply change the aspect of the virtual film plane will allow Anamorphic bokeh in Octane. It's not just good for people wanting to match footage to real Anamorphic lenses, it's also visually more interesting when you simply render with Anamorphic bokeh, it looks extremely cinematic - and the Anamorphic look is a world away from the standard bokeh you see everywhere. Anamorphic footage also has a strange distortion when you pan around, but that's all part of the look and appeal of it.
Anyway, two Octane devs in my thread, I think it must be Christmas
But yup, it would be fantasic if you could add this ability, it looks amazing, and it's necessary to match proper filmmaker's lenses anyway.
I hope I've explained it well enough, but there's tons of stuff about Anamorphic on the net if I haven't made much sense
.
Windows 7 64-bit | 2X GeForce GTX 460 | nForce 980a Hybrid-SLI | AMD Phenom II X4 3.40GHz | 16GB
Ok, yea, he's talking about anamorphic bokeh, not pixel aspect ratio. Which is good, because not many need to output to non-square pixels anymore. But bad because it's not as quickly implemented.
Here's a good link on anamorphic lenses that RED put together: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/anamorphic-lenses. Most all anamorphic lenses have a 2:1 squeeze, even though cinematic anamorphic comes in a few different aspect ratios.
I like the way V-Ray handles bokeh: V-Ray Physical Camera. It not only has an anamorphic control, for squeezing or stretching bokeh, but it also has iris blade count and rotation controls.
The trick is to be able to render that anamorphic "squeezed bokeh" look while still outputting to square pixels.
Here's a good link on anamorphic lenses that RED put together: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/anamorphic-lenses. Most all anamorphic lenses have a 2:1 squeeze, even though cinematic anamorphic comes in a few different aspect ratios.
I like the way V-Ray handles bokeh: V-Ray Physical Camera. It not only has an anamorphic control, for squeezing or stretching bokeh, but it also has iris blade count and rotation controls.
The trick is to be able to render that anamorphic "squeezed bokeh" look while still outputting to square pixels.
Last edited by riggles on Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you look at the images, it does exactly that: Squash/stretch the DOF disc. So my question again: Is what you see above, that what you would expect?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
No, I don't think we're on the same page yet. That's pixel aspect ratio.abstrax wrote:If you look at the images, it does exactly that: Squash/stretch the DOF disc. So my question again: Is what you see above, that what you would expect?
Here's a clearer example:
Same pixel aspect ratio, but the bokeh is squeezed/stretched with the anamorphic lens vs the spherical.
.
@Riggles
Yup, good example, cheers
@Abstrax
No, that's not the same, but what you did there demonstrates the problem perfectly. If you look at your images, notice you were able to change the aspect ratio of the scene, but the aspect ratio of the bokeh has also been changed. The Anamorphic bokeh effect is achieved by stretching the scene back to it's normal aspect while at the same time, keeping the bokeh stretched, but in the opposite direction (horizontal bokeh becomes vertical).
Here is an example I did in Poser (see the attatched file), I did it using the same technique I pointed out in my previous post.
On the left is Anamorphic bokeh rendering, and on the right is standard bokeh. I did it by doubling the width of the figure in the Anamorphic version and then squeezing it back again after it had rendered. The bit you need to really understand here is that although the figure was doubled in width BEFORE I rendered it, the DOF calculated by the renderer is just behaving as normal. That's why we effectively have a normal defocus effect fired at an object twice the width. This is how we seperate the bokeh aspect from the scene aspect. The key is that a normal defocus was fired at an object that was twice as wide as I required it.
Anamorphic bokeh gets more vertically stretched the more it is out of focus, and it makes perfect sense when you think about it because stretching something in one direction amplifies the effect - so if you have an amount of defocus and stretch that in one direction, it appears to grow in that direction, and the more it is out of focus, the more pronounced the effect, this is why the bokeh gets more stretched the more it is out of focus.
The attached file isn't the best of examples, but you can see that Anamorphic bokeh look much more real-world lens like and cinematic than the standard bokeh. The problem with the technique used here is that the scene objects themselves had to be stretched, and that only works in a head-on view, that's why the film plane itself needs to be able to change it's aspect so that what is captured to it will get deformed in postwork when it is squeezed back, that's what happens in the real world, that's how it works. Basically, a cinema projector has an Anamorphic lens attached to it which is used to correct the Anamorphic lens that was attached to the camera they shot the film on.
I admit it's confusing, but you'll kick yourself when you realise what we're getting at, it'll become obvious all of a sudden
.
@Riggles
Yup, good example, cheers
@Abstrax
No, that's not the same, but what you did there demonstrates the problem perfectly. If you look at your images, notice you were able to change the aspect ratio of the scene, but the aspect ratio of the bokeh has also been changed. The Anamorphic bokeh effect is achieved by stretching the scene back to it's normal aspect while at the same time, keeping the bokeh stretched, but in the opposite direction (horizontal bokeh becomes vertical).
Here is an example I did in Poser (see the attatched file), I did it using the same technique I pointed out in my previous post.
On the left is Anamorphic bokeh rendering, and on the right is standard bokeh. I did it by doubling the width of the figure in the Anamorphic version and then squeezing it back again after it had rendered. The bit you need to really understand here is that although the figure was doubled in width BEFORE I rendered it, the DOF calculated by the renderer is just behaving as normal. That's why we effectively have a normal defocus effect fired at an object twice the width. This is how we seperate the bokeh aspect from the scene aspect. The key is that a normal defocus was fired at an object that was twice as wide as I required it.
Anamorphic bokeh gets more vertically stretched the more it is out of focus, and it makes perfect sense when you think about it because stretching something in one direction amplifies the effect - so if you have an amount of defocus and stretch that in one direction, it appears to grow in that direction, and the more it is out of focus, the more pronounced the effect, this is why the bokeh gets more stretched the more it is out of focus.
The attached file isn't the best of examples, but you can see that Anamorphic bokeh look much more real-world lens like and cinematic than the standard bokeh. The problem with the technique used here is that the scene objects themselves had to be stretched, and that only works in a head-on view, that's why the film plane itself needs to be able to change it's aspect so that what is captured to it will get deformed in postwork when it is squeezed back, that's what happens in the real world, that's how it works. Basically, a cinema projector has an Anamorphic lens attached to it which is used to correct the Anamorphic lens that was attached to the camera they shot the film on.
I admit it's confusing, but you'll kick yourself when you realise what we're getting at, it'll become obvious all of a sudden
.
Last edited by pumeco on Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Windows 7 64-bit | 2X GeForce GTX 460 | nForce 980a Hybrid-SLI | AMD Phenom II X4 3.40GHz | 16GB