|
Tell us what you think of the site.
|
Autodesk Media & Entertainment User Community
|
Autodesk® 3ds Max®
|
|
Autodesk® Maya®
|
|
Autodesk® Softimage®
|
|
Autodesk® MotionBuilder®
|
|
Autodesk® Mudbox™
|
|
Autodesk® ImageModeler™
|
|
Autodesk® Sketchbook® Pro
|
|
Autodesk® Smoke on Mac®
|
| mental ray and ocean lume noise
|
|
|
Interesting, I’ve not seen the noise problem before. Can you use a falloff map in distance mode to fade the ocean map out?
Also, how many computers are you using to render your animation? If you’ve got more than one, you’ll find they each render the ocean map in different positions.
|
|
|
|
I use only one machine , but how i m going to make an animation with a noise like this ,
there is some reason and way to avoid this ?
| Attachment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of the procedural maps appear to become noise when viewed at a long distance. The basic problem is that the waves in your water are very small compared to the size of a pixel in the image.
Did you read my last reply? You can make any map fade out into the distance by using a falloff map. This way you can make the waves disappear before they reach the distance at which they become problematic noise.
If you don’t want to do that, you’re going to have to increase the physical size of the waves and/or increase the max samples per pixel setting (which will obviously increase the render time).
Author: Rich Wilson
|
| Replied: 19 July 2010 07:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like there may also be some glossy reflection grain/noise happening here? Turn off the ocean(lume) bump map and render the water without waves. If it still has grain/noise in the reflections then you’ll need to resolve that before enabling the waves.
Jeff Patton
My Website | mental ray materials & blog
|
|
|
|
You are right , the bump is what is making this , and after proving , with
a falloff map , something i must be making wrong , finally i have proved with
a extreme falloff because on a gradient way i cant see any better than without
falloff map , and my results are equal ,
How i must use the falloff map ? , i have proved inverted , the fresnel option , etc ,..
( even i think that the way is toward the distance , ..
|
| Attachment
|
|
|
| Attachment
|
|
|
| Attachment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Try Falloff with Distance Blend instead of Towards/Away. You probably won’t want such a steep Mix Curve.
Author: Samab
|
| Replied: 21 July 2010 07:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I tried , but similar render noise , it suposed that the falloff makes that on the far from the
camera , no bump is aplied , and then no noise is made , like when unactive bump on the
material , but all i prove , always there is bump on the water , included when invert the
falloff switch between black ( ocean lume ) and white .
Must be im using wrong the falloff map ? some advice for can resolve the issue to make a
video ?
|
| Attachment
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you can’t get it to control the wave steepness value then you could always:
1. Duplicate the current water material and disable the ocean(lume)shader on this duplicate material.
2. Assign both the original and new duplicate, bump-less water material to a blend material and mix between them with the distance blend falloff.
Similar to how I described controlling displaced grass here:
http://mrmaterials.com/jeffs-blog/94-grass-displacement-faq.html
Jeff Patton
My Website | mental ray materials & blog
|
|
|
|
Thanks All ,
now it works .
I see that then each camera must have its own configuration of the blend material , on distance blend parameters , because what it works for a “near” camera , dont work for “far” cameras ,..,
or a camera that is into a path , long path , from far to near , then have a problem , that
i will resolve using more cameras , less long on time , changing views ...on the video ..?
|
| Attachment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can’t you just decrease the “far distance” until it’s OK for all the views? OK, it might look a bit flat if you switch to a camera with a long telephoto lens but it’d save a lot of hassle.
Author: Rich Wilson
|
| Replied: 22 July 2010 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
dont work for “far” cameras ,..,
or a camera that is into a path , long path , from far to near , then have a problem
I wonder if that is related to a bug I found with falloff and distance blend in mr. That was with distance blend set to Object not camera, but it maybe affects animated cameras too.
|
|
|
|
Following the post , i would like to question how to make the video , i have read on the
max help that sometimes is better make one fg per frame and anothers not , is a bit confusing .
im thinking on making fg maps of each frame at lower resolution and samples , and after
render at higher samples , but im not sure what way is better .
Are 7.000 frames , and i must be sure .
some advice ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on ther type of animation. One map per frame works for scenes with animated objects and lighting, you can then interpolate the FG frames to reduce flicker if it’s a problem.
If the Anim is a fly-through, with a moving camera but static scene objects and lights, then you can project from points on the camera path instead.
The Help explains in more detail which method to use in different circumstances.
Author: Samab
|
| Replied: 27 July 2010 07:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, actually even by „fly-through“ animation the best solution for quality animations always is to generate FG map for every frame; MR render that fast and the “project from points on the camera path” method doesn’t bring better results immediately.
One needs really to turn up the settings (more segments) to get something acceptable.
Author: ivan iliev
|
| Replied: 27 July 2010 08:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My usual approach for fly-throughs is to use the “incrementally add points to FG map” option and render, say, every 15th frame, usually at reduced resolution. Then re-use the map for the full animation.
Author: Rich Wilson
|
| Replied: 27 July 2010 11:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That may well be right. I’ve not really used the Camera Path method since I rarely do flythroughs, I was just going on what I had read.
I’m assuming your anim is a flythrough, that’s what it looks like.
Author: Samab
|
| Replied: 27 July 2010 11:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The “project points from camera path” thing works OK, but there’s a limited choice of how many segments to split the path into, and it can be a bit tricky choosing the right FG point density and so on. Rendering a proportion of the frames is equivalent really, just easier to control. You can also check how the lighting’s looking and run a few additional frames if there are any sections that need it—for example, where the camera is moving quickly along a corridor.
Author: Rich Wilson
|
| Replied: 28 July 2010 07:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ,
i have made the render animation . after render with farm services , and pay some good euros,
the sea waves flicker a lot , diferent waves , disaster , after i have read some post about
a bug with ocean lume and backburber , with 3dsmax design 2010 , that is what i am using , somebody
knows , if still same bug on 3dsmax design 2011 ? or i must re render 3.000 frames by myself with
one workstation ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sympathy Jamsurf,
I personally have never found a way to eliminate the flickering using that shader. Therefore I just deactivate the bump mapping, which obviously is not an option for you.
You need a workaround using just the diffuse mapping I’m afraid. :-(
Author: ivan iliev
|
| Replied: 31 July 2010 08:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can use other procedural maps to get wave effects, like Noise and Smoke. they can be combined with Mix maps. Experiment with mixing different noise types at different scales.
Author: Samab
|
| Replied: 01 August 2010 11:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That’ll be the bug I told you about then… :-)
I couldn’t find a way to work round it. I’d hoped it might be possible to render the Ocean map to a video file and use that as an animated bump map, but I couldn’t find a way of getting it to render as a suitable image.
I think the only option is to use a different map when rendering on multiple computers.
Author: Rich Wilson
|
| Replied: 02 August 2010 01:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
