Which feature do you need the most?

[stratified]

wow, great improvement in the compositing workflow
what I have understood is that with the deep channel is like to have a dynamic z-depth pass without needing to mask objects. The different layers are correctly stacked using the z distance, is this correct?
ciao beppe

Hi Beppe,

I think your understanding is correct - just some extra clarification from my side.

In a deep image, there can be multiple samples at different depths (a.k.a. depth samples). As Goldorak already said, usually this is a colour and an alpha value. A pixel with depth samples is called a deep pixel. You get multiple depth samples when:

• Several objects are visible through the same pixel. In a regular image, an average value is calculated for that pixel. In a deep image, the individual color for each object is stored together with the depth. Because all the depth information is still available, you can compose without any artifacts, even when the render has motion blur or depth-of-field.
• When an atmospheric effect like fog is visible through the pixel, the deep pixels correctly register the attenuation function. This allows you to compose images in volumes.

Like you already said, there's now a stack of layers ordered on depth. It's a lot more flexible than the simple A over B operation (i.e. alpha blending).

You can find less theoretical explanations here and here. Another cool application of deep images is nice lens bokeh as shown here.

cheers,
Thomas

[bepeg4d]

Thanks Thomas for the clarifications and for the very interesting links, the Weta clips are incredible and explain very well the great possibility of this workflow
ciao beppe

[voon]

For me atm as a hobbyist ... fog .. atmosphere ... easily done ... just adding some realistic haze to the daylight shots, no matter if the scene is 600 KM wide or just 300 meters with rain mist etc. Easily, without hacks like scattering and all its problems with alrger scenes and so on.

[rappet]

Should the poll not be setup again (or start new thread) without the features that in the meanwhile are already integrated?
Cheers,

This is a bright idea.

Still is

OK, this is the last quote on myself , coz'I do want to stalk... (oops I did it again)
but I really think it is a good idea for the poll to be setup again (or start new thread) without the features that in the meanwhile are already integrated?
imo this poll is Obsolete and it has no use to vote now or look at the numbers voted.
cheers,

[Mugz]

Personally I'd love to have a transform gizmo to actually move geometry around my scene rather than changing sliders and hoping for the best. Just seems so ridiculous this isn't possible?

[Rikk The Gaijin]

Personally I'd love to have a transform gizmo to actually move geometry around my scene rather than changing sliders and hoping for the best. Just seems so ridiculous this isn't possible?

It will be in v3.0

[alien]

Hope have easier License soltuion for freelancer to setup a small render farm with buying license for each machine.

[Phil_RA]

For me atm as a hobbyist ... fog .. atmosphere ... easily done ... just adding some realistic haze to the daylight shots, no matter if the scene is 600 KM wide or just 300 meters with rain mist etc. Easily, without hacks like scattering and all its problems with alrger scenes and so on.

Well the scattering solution is kind of appropriate, since that's what fog is (scattering of light in a volume of particles). I don't know of any application that does fog realistically, so it's often done in post production (saldy).

For example, if you have a scene with some closed glass bottles and you add fog, the fog will also be inside the bottles, which is wrong. It will even be inside the glass, so if you have thick glass or other non-opaque materials it looks wrong even more so because the fog will be inside everything! It might seem trivial, but it can quickly be wrong in scenes that have specular materials (transparent/translucent).

The biggest problem with fog rendering is defining the particle coverage; where are the particles in the air, and where are they not? For users, it would quickly become a pain in the butt. I don't see any good solution for a long time, especially since most people don't care, they just want the good old distance-based and height-based parameter with some noise, not caring about the impact on the physically based rendering :p

[3dgeeks]

A tone map pass and an alpha pass. Im using max plugin, but assume it has to be implemented at the standalone level.

[face_off]

A few people in this thread have asked for UDIM support. The next release of the OctaneRender for Modo plugin will add this. Pls see http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 20#p241420 for a video of it in action.

Paul