Novica & Forum Members Tips & Product Reviews Pt 7
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The new update to the studio is already in DIM. (1:40am Central Time)
I'm waiting for others to download it and report back on how it works.
@Novica - Thanks so much for your BOO breakdown Novica, i love your setup. If i get time later, i'll try and replicate your setup and post it as a preset if you dont mind, there's way to much good information here to go to waste! I too would be interested in thoughts on the new iray build if anyone has any? Cheers!
Wow, need to catch up here. Novica has been busy with those Ghost Lights! I have a four day weekend starting tomorrow and can't wait to play with them. @KindredArts - would love those as presets!
I downloaded the new version of DAZ and am testing it on my computer, which is "good enough" for Iray but often slow. I have a 750Ti and 14 GB of RAM. My processor is older, as this is a rebuilt PC I was given at my last job, which I left 3 years ago. Can't remember which one, but it says it's got Intel Xeon inside. I'll check later.
Anyhow, here's a scene I posted on my art thread a day or two ago. The first time I rendered it, the thing took 12 hours because I have a whole bunch of settings dialed wayyy up. I don't know if anything got reset with the the install of the new one, but I'm at 85% in 48 minutes and my computer isn't crawling. It seems to actually be using my GPU now. Many times before I could've sworn it wasn't, even on small scenes because everything just ground to a halt on my computer. 48 minutes may be slow for someone with a nicer card, but it's exciting for me! And the fact that my computer is still usable during a render is too!
@LIynara Hey! you @'d me but i never received a mention email... i could have sworn that was a thing. Does it just notify you randomly? Anyway, i downloaded the new Iray build and it didn't work, because i'm a derp. I hadn't updated my drivers in forever so iray just rendered blanks until i sherlocked the case. It does seem a bit more speedy, but more interestingly the pre-load times seem a bit quicker. Anyone else notice that? Also my GPU's seem to be running cooler, but that could be because its fricken' freezing today! I should really write this stuff down so i have a point of reference for the next build.
@KindredArts I'm not sure. I didn't get an email either. Go figure!
Not sure where you're at. I'm near Chicago and it's butt freezing cold here too. I'm going to play with the Ghost Lights this weekend. Can't wait! I'll check the preload times in the new DAZ Studio too. I didn't have a lot of time to test things before I had to come to work. Long weekend though, which equals time to play!
@LIynara Well waddaya know, i got that one! It must be a like a lottery. I'm in th UK, it's perpetually cold over here. Unless you're here in july/august time when we temporarily sit three feet away from the surface of the sun. We have some whacky weather here, and boy do we like to talk about it over a nice cup of tea. :)
@KindredArts Talk to me about crazy weather! I'm in tornado alley here. Tornado season runs from April through November, usually. Occasionally we get an early or late one. I've been through some interesting experiences with those. I have one in my first book, and actually bought Ant Farm's poseable tornado in the store. Thought it would be fun for promo art. I also have Ron's tornado brushes, LOL. And your Iray Rain! I need to play with that too this weekend. Yay!
PS. No email notifications here. I'll have to check my settings.
@kindredarts I'll send you a PM. Happy to help- but don't try to figure the settings out on your own, I'm willing to share the coordinates so you can just apply them and get the exact setup. Let's chat.
OK, we don't don't get tornados, so you've got me beat there. But we do get drizzle, which is far more dangerous. I'm getting lots of notifications now by the way, i'm not sure what i did right. :S
Righto captain, i'll watch my inbox.
@kindredarts LOL, I just had to laugh at your particular choice of expression. "too much good information here to go to waste!"
Ahem. Like it's a waste if it's on my thread, that no one will see it. Thanks a lot.
@Novica Oh you know what i meant! I just didn't want it getting burried that's all, your thread goes faster than my little thread.
So decided to test the "Boo" (Ghost Lights mini setup) on a very dim scene. Tried Prison Room. Here's where the default setup loaded. Then I simply lowered them / brought them inside the room. The first render I put them all at 500K. The Film ISO is 130 and Exposure Value 13.65, that's my standard. No graininess, nice balance of not relying on ISO to do all the work. (Remember you can also increase Environment Intensity.) Since the Prison Room is so dark, increasing the Burn Highlights to .40 and lowering Crush Blacks to .15
BTW, KindredArts and I are working on some presets.
So I loaded the set and here's where the lights are in the default position. Notice they have a nice "spread" (width good, height good) so it's easy for larger sets to make minor adjustments.
So this is ALL 15 lights on 500K. (after they were lowered/brought inside the walls. Same positions, no rotation.)
You made me laugh out loud! Ours is very bizarre in Ohio as well. One day its below zero the next day its up to 50. Or it rains when the sun is shining. Our idea of checking the weather is to stick our head out the door every hour because that's about how often things change.
Novica thank you for the comprehensive light posts those will be very useful.
I don't know if anyone has done the water dragon I think he is pretty old but I think he turned out beautifully. Straight out of the box 3delight since the water won't render in Iray.
So basically I have one of the back lights from my "Boo" ghost lights (from the Ghost Lights) coming through the window, have the overhead light doing a very faint fill (we're talking a 75, not even 100)
I had to work on it to get the light plane slanted so sun would actually get in the room. And the front wall / door HAS to be hidden to get a good render, and then you get more lighting coming in if you're not careful, etc. This is dark, but it's meant to be.The lights were only set to 30. All of these use Daylight.
This took a minute eight seconds to render and is 700 x 600 pixels.
This spectral option in the latest version caught my eye (when you are in Render pane and click on General, did you notice Spectral Rendering Enable? Here's the thread. If it uses the actual wavelengths for more realistic lighting, why wouldn't we always want to use it? If you want a scene to have red lights overall then when you are choosing red you're getting exactly what you want, etc. (And of course, using White Point you can do that so easily...)
I'm not a user of Smart Content so none of that makes any difference to me, is there any big changes so far as Content Library? I went to some of the pages regarding the new version and there's too much jargon / Smart Content emphasis, I'm not seeing Content Library "Oh wow!" information.
Speed is the biggest reason not to use spectral rendering.
I may do some tests, can't promise when. My computer is fast so I'll see how much it slows it down. I also asked a question about architectural and caustics. I don't know how all this relates, but I'll keep the discussion over on that other thread as I've already linked it.
What the heck. Stay tuned this evening, I'm running tests now. I have a figure with hair/clothing and 4 vases. We're adding different settings and see what the render time is. I have an Alienware51 that is fast, so if it slows down a lot for me, it won't be terrific for people on slow computers.
I can't promise to run all these through to the end, depending on how long these go (and we have no idea) but I have benchmarks so we can compare when they get to a certain point. I did run this first one through to 100%. Let me say first of all, I notice the glass vase under her arm must be playing havoc with trying to render the shadow, it never did completely darken and I have the max samples and time turned up extremely high. I never saw it change after 18 minutes, even though this went to 37 minutes for the 100%. If you look at the arm on OUR left, you'll see the noise. I think that's due to light coming up from the vase. The other arm doesn't have that problem. Who knows, but it gives us something to watch.
For my studio- under Advanced in the Render Pane, GPU and GeForce GTX 970 are both checked. (The link goes to the card specs. I have 32GB Ram memory on my computer, Alienware51. The Cuda Cores are 1664, etc.) I do not have Architectural or Caustic Samplers on. (They are under Optimization in the Render Pane when you are in Editor.)
Okay, the first two you should REALLY take note of the difference. End result: typical render without Spectural Rendering, Architectural or Caustic Samplers- time to finish 37:10. (thirty seven minutes, ten seconds.)
WITH Spectural Rendering / Faithful / Cie1931 (No Architectural/Caustic Samplers) IT WAS 24:03 (24 minutes 3 seconds) TOOK OFF 13 MINUTES!!!!!
I watched second by second. The first one really stalled out at the end, whereas Spectural kept a steady pace and then really zipped along. Let's see how Natural looks, compared to Faithful. And the end result in time- will there be a difference?
Next, to change only to Natural (leaving Cie1931). EDIT: Added below. I am going to load in a graphics program and click back and forth so I can easily see what's different.
These are 800 x 800 so you can enlarge compare. No postwork.
LOOK FOR THESE AREAS AS THIS IS WHAT I AM REFERRING TO FOR "CURVED AREAS." And it shows the tiny dot that changes on the clear glass- yep, that's the only change I found! EDIT: Keep an eye on her green shirt stomach area.
Test 1: Typical render, no Spectural/Architectural/Caustic settings Finish: 37:10
Okay, now let me compare this one to the Spectural Faithful and Natural by clicking back and forth on each render in my graphics program. I can see what changes very easily. Results: the Typical render has a lighter blue highlight in the bottom of the upper right vase when compared to either of the Spectural ones. It also had lighter gold reflections in the CURVED reflections in the gold bottom right vase. The gold vase is similar to Faithful other than the one curved sliver of reflection. (Natural is going to be noticeably darker compared to the typical render or the Faithful.)
Edit: Notice the "sour apple" green of her shirt (tummy.) Both Typical and Faithful have a more green influence on the gold vase than when I test Natural.
Test 2: Spectural Rendering Faithful Cie1931 Finish: 24:03
Test 3: Spectural Rendering NATURAL Cie1931 Finish: 24:30. End result: 27 seconds longer but 100-150 iterations less than Faithful. Still 13 minutes less than a render without Spectural Rendering.
I would strongly recommend right clicking and saving the #2 and #3 so you can click back and forth in a graphics program to see the changes, or you can just take my word for it. The person doesn't change at all from what I can tell, and I zoomed in. There is a huge difference in that bottom right golden vase- it is a LOT darker with Natural (#3) The blue vase above it also had a change- that bottom area, the last blue reflection that is a bit darker than the other two reflected areas- goes lighter with Natural (#3)
So blue glass reflections go lighter with Natural (but are still darker than Typical render), whereas golds go darker. The clear glass one is negligible- and I mean teeny tiny change- of ONE DOT. People don't appear to change. (I'm surprised.) And as mentioned under the Test #1, the gold vase is a lot darker than your typical render and has darker blue highlights.
IN ALL THREE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DIFFERENCE IN PLAIN GLASS TO EVEN NOTE IT.
EDIT: If you download and compare this next one, you'll see the yellow influence in the shirt tummy area. The green changes from sour apple, to slightly more lemon-lime. So this puts a bit more gold into the gold glass.
Here's a summary so far: (In progress, and editing as I keep comparing.)
Typical render: (no Spectural, etc) Has lighter blue reflections than both Spectural vases, the gold glass is similar to Spectural Cie 1931 Faithful, but will have lighter reflections. Has more of a green influence on golds. Takes noticeably longer than either Specturals.
Spectural Faithful (Cie1931) : Similar to Typical render in keeping the gold glass it's color, but like Typical, it does have a slight green influence on gold. Gold reflections are darker than Typical in CURVED areas- the bigger square/slightly curved gold highlights held their brightness. It is much lighter than Natural in reflections and glass. So if you want to speed up render times, use this one, with curved gold highlights only slightly darker.
Spectural Natural (Cie1931) : The gold glass goes noticeably darker, as do the highlights, compared to both Typical and S.Faithful. However, it has a slight gold influence on the golden glass, instead of green like Typical and Faithful. So you have to balance getting more of a gold glass but a darker look, vs a slight green influence but brighter overall.
The (I'm guessing) inside/curved blue reflections were SLIGHTLY lighter than S. Faithful, but still darker than the Typical render. So for blues, if you want to speed up your render and going slightly darker on SOME of the reflections (the two big square reflections hardly changed, again I think it was the curvature of the one inside the glass that did it) then use Natural.
Bottom line- speed up render times with Spectural choices- but golds consider Faithful, blues consider Natural.
Okay, so going to test Cie1964, starting again with Faithful. I'm not going to monitor this minute by minute (I had written down all the iterations, etc) but I'll get the exact time it stops and I will compare iterations as it goes along and see how it does with the Faithful using the other Cie. Back in awhile. (Hopefully this is helping you?)
IN PROGRESS. Taking 400 less iterations to achieve same percent, same minutes, compared to the cie1931 Now 500 iterations fewer needed. Holding steady at 16 minutes, still 500 iterations less required, maintaining the same percentage rendered at the same minute. Now starting to even out at 19 minutes, only 200 iterations difference. Now at 21 minutes, 608 iterations less- wow, ping-pong.
End result: exact same amount of time: 24:30. Iterations almost 500 less (492) to achieve results in same time. I am posting the Faithful Cie1931 first so you can compare it to the Cie1964. Here's the Cie1931:
Spectural Faithful: Cie1964
I really hope you download both the 1931 and the 1964 so you can see this- the Cie1964 is what I would call the "highlighter." It brightens overall, not just the reflections. HOWEVER- the blue reflection (that I circled for you to watch in the first post of the tests) is much brighter with the Typical render. So you have Typical, then Cie1964 then Cie1931 so far as the blue highlight being brighter/more intense (meaning it keeps its color.)
For the gold: Okay, the Faithful Cie1964 casts a better gold onto golden glass as it casts gold, whereas Typical render and Faithful 1931 cast a slight (and I mean slight) green cast. And again, the Faithful Cie1964 is brighter overall in all areas compared to the Cie1931.
Spectural Natural: Cie1964
So here's Natural Cie1964. Comparing it to the Natural Cie1931, it's lighter overall. It has the yellow contribution, perhaps a red tinge.
Even easier: you can see the differences by clicking on each image which opens them in a new tab, then click back and forth between the tabs. Can instantly see what has changed. You can also zoom the tab in your browser if you want a close-up look.
Thanks for sharing your explorations! The changes appear to be on the right hand side. Do you think there's anything different on that side of the scene that is having an effect?
I haven't downloaded the new version yet. All looking good?
Another thought: these differences you are showing are relatively small. When I use my camera, I can get everything from a subtle to a dramatically different result by changing one of the dozens of scene or special effect settings it has. I have a few favorite settings, so I take 3-4 shots of every scene and then save the ones that have the look I want. So your results are consistent with camera operation, in that changes in settings change the look.
My tests are showing the opposite though. Interesting! They are all (using Cie1931, Cie1964, and both Faithful and Natural) rendering 13 minutes faster.
I don't think so- that side has slightly less light, so IMO if anything, changes would be harder to spot, not easier. It's also the side with the colored glass whereas the other side is the plain glass and opague vase.
Edit: Other than noticing the spectural thing, I haven't really explored the studio to see changes. I do NOT use Smart Content. Ever.
Oh, he sure did! Looks very nice, and the face has nice details. I haven't seen that fella in ages (and I have him, guess he swam off somewhere...)
What vase is the one with the grapes? That's a cool vase! :)
Vase Collection for Iray- for all of them.