I don't think z-depth should be AA.
Having said that, would be cool to have an AA and non AA z-depth for certain tasks.
Render Passes Discussion
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
- Vue2Octane
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:16 am
It should definitely be optional to do AA. If you use it for example to control a blur mask, i.e. you do depth of field in composite, then the jaggies will show. Also for other stuff.prodviz wrote:I don't think z-depth should be AA.
Having said that, would be cool to have an AA and non AA z-depth for certain tasks.
- stratified
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:32 am
- Location: Auckland, New Zealand
All our info passes (and our info channels kernels which are the same) do anti-aliasing. You can control it by using pixel filtering but you cannot turn it off. So if you end up with jagged edges it means you did not take enough samples/px.Vue2Octane wrote:It should definitely be optional to do AA. If you use it for example to control a blur mask, i.e. you do depth of field in composite, then the jaggies will show. Also for other stuff.prodviz wrote:I don't think z-depth should be AA.
Having said that, would be cool to have an AA and non AA z-depth for certain tasks.
If there's need for crisp edges, we can make this an option.
cheers,
Thomas
As far as I understand, zdepth represents how far a point is away (in Z) from the camera or image plane. So AA would give the incorrect pixel reading.
So, I'd say we'd want the non AA zdepth first and then a second, AA version (for carrying out other effects.)
Also, on the Passes front, have we sorted out how to output separate red, greed and blue mattes for every material in a scene?
I like the way V-Ray does this by having multiple render layers, each containing red, green and blue.
cheers.
So, I'd say we'd want the non AA zdepth first and then a second, AA version (for carrying out other effects.)
Also, on the Passes front, have we sorted out how to output separate red, greed and blue mattes for every material in a scene?
I like the way V-Ray does this by having multiple render layers, each containing red, green and blue.
cheers.
Could you have a look at our proposal:prodviz wrote:As far as I understand, zdepth represents how far a point is away (in Z) from the camera or image plane. So AA would give the incorrect pixel reading.
So, I'd say we'd want the non AA zdepth first and then a second, AA version (for carrying out other effects.)
Also, on the Passes front, have we sorted out how to output separate red, greed and blue mattes for every material in a scene?
I like the way V-Ray does this by having multiple render layers, each containing red, green and blue.
cheers.
http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 00#p207200
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
- stratified
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:32 am
- Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Well not really, if some geometry boundary is visible through a pixel, both are wrong. These are just 2 ways of being wrong.prodviz wrote:As far as I understand, zdepth represents how far a point is away (in Z) from the camera or image plane. So AA would give the incorrect pixel reading.
So, I'd say we'd want the non AA zdepth first and then a second, AA version (for carrying out other effects.)
Also, on the Passes front, have we sorted out how to output separate red, greed and blue mattes for every material in a scene?
I like the way V-Ray does this by having multiple render layers, each containing red, green and blue.
cheers.
cheers,
Thomas
Yes, exactly, and most of the time an anti-aliased depth pass is much more use than an aliased one.stratified wrote:Well not really, if some geometry boundary is visible through a pixel, both are wrong. These are just 2 ways of being wrong.
T.
Win10 x64|i7-9750H 2.6 GHz|32 GB RAM | RTX2080 max Q 8GB
Yes, this looks great from a CG/live plate integration point of view. The one thing not covered here though is we would also need to be able to project the bg plate, ie. the image we want to place the CG into, onto geometry that matches it, in this case the floor, and have that geometry be reflected by and pass lighting and shadow contributions onto the CG elements but be invisible to the camera in all the passes. I actually think this would already be possible with the existing visibility options but just wanted to make sure you knew it would be needed in the layer setup as well.abstrax wrote:
All three passes together can then be composited onto some background image: With shadows (alpha blending - could be made multiplicative, too): With reflections (addition): With the layer (alpha blending): Please let us know if that makes sense to you.
Cheers,
Marcus
T.
Win10 x64|i7-9750H 2.6 GHz|32 GB RAM | RTX2080 max Q 8GB
We do that already with the matte material (see http://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 10#p177710) and would do something similar with the layers, at least as an additional option.TBFX wrote:Yes, this looks great from a CG/live plate integration point of view. The one thing not covered here though is we would also need to be able to project the bg plate, ie. the image we want to place the CG into, onto geometry that matches it, in this case the floor, and have that geometry be reflected by and pass lighting and shadow contributions onto the CG elements but be invisible to the camera in all the passes. I actually think this would already be possible with the existing visibility options but just wanted to make sure you knew it would be needed in the layer setup as well.
T.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
hello abstrax.
i went through your proposal again in detail. it still looks fine to me. yet 1 questions remains.
1. concearning reflection pass. what do you mean by "in the image above I also had to add some offset. Otherwise parts of the layer would have negative values which Gimp can't use."
other than that, what TBFX sais about the plate-reflection-comp is very important as well..
i went through your proposal again in detail. it still looks fine to me. yet 1 questions remains.
1. concearning reflection pass. what do you mean by "in the image above I also had to add some offset. Otherwise parts of the layer would have negative values which Gimp can't use."
other than that, what TBFX sais about the plate-reflection-comp is very important as well..