Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
GaryAbrehart

Hair And Depth Of Field

Recommended Posts

I have asked this before (I think) but my post has dissappeared (probably since this forum has been re-vamped). Anyway I have been working on a big project lately which required DOF. Now using AR as I do most of the time it works fine with most objects except hair... And alpha channels. If I render a hairy object with DOF the edges go blurred. Physical render works but is SO SLOW! I have tired to use Object Buffers but they don't work with hair either. I know that I can select the hair object and under the 'Generate Tab' and change the type from 'None' to 'Circle' but I was wondering if ther was another way to fix this or does R21 have a fix? I haven't tried R21 yet but I dare say that still hasn't fixed the problem.

 

Same problem with using alpha channnels and DOF in AR, you get all sorts of artefacts where the transparenccy should be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if we want to have DoF with hair, you would have to use the physical renderer (which only works because the hair gets auto-converted to geo). This has not changed with R21, as you rightly guessed 🙂

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it’s not what you asked with using AR, but would Octane help you in this case? I’ve used hair with dof with no issues from what I can remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Octane, Cycles both would fix this problem and render the scene many times faster given you have a decent video card.  This works because of the way the render engines get hair in there.  I believe in Standard Render of C4D the hair is something added in post.  Changing the hair in the generate tab to a flat poly, triangle, or circle would force it to get that geometry in there before post thus having the post post dof work on it.  In Octane and Cycles they have the hair in there like geometry, but the geometry is generated before the render starts so it works.  At least that is how I imagined it working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fastbee said:

Octane, Cycles both would fix this problem and render the scene many times faster given you have a decent video card.  This works because of the way the render engines get hair in there.  I believe in Standard Render of C4D the hair is something added in post.  Changing the hair in the generate tab to a flat poly, triangle, or circle would force it to get that geometry in there before post thus having the post post dof work on it.  In Octane and Cycles they have the hair in there like geometry, but the geometry is generated before the render starts so it works.  At least that is how I imagined it working.

 

Yeah, that's exactly how Octane does it. It generates geometry before rendering, which is why a huge amount of hair takes a huge amount VRam, which is an issue in some cases. Coincidentally I've been playing around with hair in Octane yesterday, just to see how well it looks and how fast it renders, even with DoF.

 

This is the result:

photo5213049665879124601.thumb.jpg.e0770673edc950e4c75abffaea192a4b.jpg

 

Nothing fancy but it might give @GaryAbrehart an idea of how well hair works in Octane. It's dynamic as well, so you can render full simulated animations with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • Thanks for the replies peeps. Looks like I will have to switch to Redshift at some stage to fix this since I have a Redshift licence.

    Thing is I have one render heavy project a year and to complete it I need two machines so that would mean buying another computer with at least two GPUs in it to create the same workflow and that would mean at least a £2k expenditure (not including the extra licences) and I am not sure if the project will return since I do it every year.

    One other thing is AR doesn't seem to like alpha channels either and creates nasty looks when using DOF I imagine this is the same problem as hair so Redshift should fix this too?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    You could just rent hardware or send it to a renderfarm. There's renderfarms for Redshift I think, only Octane seems to have this thing where they only allow their own renderfarm because of some licensing stuff. No need to buy new hardware just for that.

    One service I have VERY good experience with is https://us.rebusfarm.net/en/lets-go/render-farm-specsRebusfarm.

    They have a dedicated Plug-In that is basically one click and you render your scene. They are also very affordable.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • @DasFrodo

    I have used Rebus in the past and they do a great service and support Redshift. The problem that I have though is I work on short animations usually between 10-30 secs. Now I normally render out a low res version send it to the client and whilst that is rendering on my second computer I get on with the next one and it works very nicely, although HD version take a lot longer. Usually there are 2-3 versions until the final version is signed off and ready for HD output so you can see I am rendering a lot for each animation. This can add up and eat into costs which means my returns are low. Not only that I use Xrefs on almost every animation and Rebus doesn't accept Xrefs so I would have to convert everything every time for render which can be time consuming. And I would be able to use the converted versions since the Xrefs might need changing. So it is a bit of a pain…

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Well, the question is, is Rebus ultimately costing you more money than the new PC? I mean yeah, you can use the PC lateron as well but do you need it?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • @DasFrodo

    That's the million pound question 🙂 And I would probably only use the machine for this particular project which comes up once a year.

     

    I calculated that if I was to use Rebus for the project it would cost me approx £500 in render fees each time so weigh that against a new computer at £2k and I would get my money back after four seasons... Seems like a no brainer from that ponit of view.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, GaryAbrehart said:

    @DasFrodo

    That's the million pound question 🙂 And I would probably only use the machine for this particular project which comes up once a year.

     

    I calculated that if I was to use Rebus for the project it would cost me approx £500 in render fees each time so weigh that against a new computer at £2k and I would get my money back after four seasons... Seems like a no brainer from that ponit of view.

    rebus is one of the most expensive render farms out there. there's others that support redshift as well (pixelplow for instance), only costing you half the money (or even less) if you bring a little bit of time. pixelplow for instance has a priority slider, so if you don't need your files within an hour or so and you can wait a couple of hours for your files the price gets cheaper, because the farm then queues your jobs after jobs from others with higher priority....

     

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • @Everfresh

    Thanks for that info m8 much appreciated! That make the whole thing sound a bit more viable. I will take a look at PixelPlow, I have only ever used Rebus so it won't hurt to look else where and give them a try. Could say me time and money on the render front.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Sign in to follow this  

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    Latest Topics

    Latest Comments

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...