Jump to content

Ogunzinho

New Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ogunzinho

  1. I didn't know, but just signed up to Rocket Lasso - thanks!
  2. In case you're following and would like a summary, here's what I've discovered: C4d R19.068 At least I'm dealing with animation. Your mileage with still images may vary. IT IS VERY UNLIKELY YOUR MULTIPASS RENDER WILL RESEMBLE YOUR IMAGE RENDER. Until new Multipass options were added in C4D R20, it was never possible to re-assemble an accurate beauty pass from C4D prior to this, see the link earlier in this thread, explicitly noted. - Multipass check box active will *change your main beauty render*, especially if outputting 32 bit files (as you need to) as you will immediately be rendering in Linear Color Space, not sRGB or whatever you might have set if you have set something. Simply checking Multipass will change even your image render, whether you select specific multipasses or not, if you are using Post Effects, and maybe if not also... It's a real Pandora's Box on your scene. Renders without Multipass checked and with it checked can look very different due to Colorspace assignments in the renders. - To composite Multipasses you really need 32 bit files. Choosing 16 bit EXR or PNG/TIFF etc. will create freaky passes and unpredictable composites, depending on your lighting and other settings. You will also suffer headroom problems in the composite and get grainy weirdness. Use 32 bit. - No formats that can't work in Linear will give good results, or even any results (Quicktime, AVI, etc.) Image sequences only, and think about that 32 bit format if you want fidelity. - Lights that are reproduced in cloners will require making the cloner into an editable object and creating individual lights if you wish the intensity of your lights to be interpolated correctly by the renderer. Cloned lights will not render correctly if you have adjusted intensity settings (and maybe if you haven't, I'd check if I were you). This is since R18 and still not fixed as far as I can tell. - Glow is a b'stard. Most especially, in the composite file created for After Effects if you use that render setting in C4D, it gets positioned beneath a Multiply layer on any motion blur you might have set, and this makes it dramatically alter the lighting in your scene. You need to move it above that Multiply Motion Blur layer to get an accurate composite of the render you see in Image View in C4D (and maybe play with opacity a little in your compositor). Depending on the nature of your Glow (this is Advanced Render Glow, not Glow as a channel in a Texture, btw) you will really struggle to reproduce the lighting interaction in the Glow with other lights that render in your Image View render, from the scene in your Multipass. I fought this a lot, and found no solution. The Multipass composite is just gonna look a bit less 'popping', and not hit any noise in your lights the way it does when you render straight to sRGB. - Lens effects need a ******* insane Curves adjustment in After Effects to get anything like the result you'll see if you uncheck Multipass and let the renderer work in sRGB in C4D. It looks pretty great (ie close to the beauty pass), but scares you if you are aware of what it's doing in the maths. *Shrug*. The Glow pass can also do with a crazy Curves boost, and backing off on the Opacity if needed, but even this won't get the same 'blooming' and cool glows that appear in Volumetric lights interacting with the GLow in a straight sRGB pass without using Multipass in C4D. It's pretty weird, but there it is. - I really need to understand 'Linear Work Flow' better to grok what the fudge is going on with Multipass Rendering in C4D. - On the other hand, I'm gonna go fully over to Redshift, and get frustrated with that instead :) PEACE
  3. LOL Don't ever feel bad about struggling with this stuff. One of the shining brains responsible for much that makes C4D great also can't quite pin it down!! Chris Schmidt, from GreyScaleGorilla adds...
  4. LOL, cheers dude. At this point, though the project isn't commercial, I've crossed every deadline / commerce / mental patience barrier I have, so in a similar vein I'm gonna call it here, and just accept that compositing out of C4D is a messy, spit-n-bluetack affair, and not some elegant magic show as described on the tin. With a bit of brute force and some feathered masks, I can get a reasonable outcome here. It cracks me up that for my particular scene, in order to end up with a well post-produced .PNG frame of about 4Mb I need something in the order of 24 32-bit openEXR files totalling something like 90Mb per frame....My mind wanders to productions like 'The Hobbit', done at 60fps at 4k resolution, and I imagine warehouses filling the Outback with Hard Drives full of compositing layers. The size of a small town. Immediate Plans: Ditch Standard / Physical renderer for Redshift, and never look back!!! Bring it on! If at some magic point in the future I ever discover what's up I'll be sure to check back in to the thread. Incidentally I tweeted Chris Schmidt from GSG the other day, but no reply as yet!
  5. From the Sublime to the Ridiculous. A peak of pure joy to a new pit of bleak confusion. Glow, my dudes, is a massive b'stard. Having gruelled through some more threads, it turns out that Glow (Advanced Render, not material channel) is notorious for not rendering properly as part of a multi-pass collection. I have a hefty Glow in my scene. So, I rendered all but Glow, then just Glow as a totally separate pass. Voilá. The Image Pass can now be recreated by Compositing the multipasses, rendered separately, with the Glow set to 'Add'. But wait. THE PLOT THICKENS. To check that the two could be A/B'd in the Picture Viewer to eyeball any differences, I quickly ran an new beauty pass, with MultiPass completely disabled. Simple, nice and quick and neat, let's compare. Hahahahahahahahahaha. The renders are completely different. As in: An Image render with Multipass active looks vastly different to an Image view of a render without Multipass enabled. Same view. Not that the Image view and the multipass view are different - there's now now Multipass view, it's de-activated. And now the main render is completely different. Try it. Take any scene you have with Post Effects and render it. Now activate Multipass - you don't have to select a single thing, just tick the Multipass box and leave everything else blank. Your render is different. I have to confess, I'm now utterly, completely lost. This must be a colorspace thing, but why do the two beauty passes of an identical scene, one with multipass enabled and the other not, look so completely different?
  6. Quick update, as I'm a tenacious fool and WILL NOT LET IT LIE! I've discovered that a bug was introduced in R18 which (as far as I can tell) has still not been ironed out in R19 and will DRAMATICALLY change your renders if you don't fix it up when doing Multipass rendering: Lights in cloners cannot properly interpolate intensity. To fix this, you either have to add some keyframes (apparently, I haven't tried it yet) OR (and this one I tried, and it works and makes a big difference) make your cloner instance editable, so you end up with real lights, not cloned versions. This has vastly improved the A/B similarities between Image View and Multipass in my case, though there is still some weirdness with the Ambience channel not correctly reading a VIsibility tag and thus leaving textures with luminance channels active rendered completely opaque when they should be at just 15%. Since they are contributing to GI, I suspect this might be the last hurdle to hammer into submission. Anyway, I was miles away from suspecting a buggy cloner as the main source of enormous difference between renders, and have clawed 1 step closer to a satisfactory result! Infernal machines...
  7. Yeah, but then you always get to eyeball the Image Render, and *it looks how I want it to look*. The Multipass renders are clearly inferior / need a lot of tinkering to get them to approximate the look required and that aoppears every time I render to viewport or picture viewer. Plus: Filesizes! A well rendered beauty shot that just needs tweak on shadows, or lighting, shouldn't really require a dozen 10mb extra files per frame just to get close in your composite. The idea of AOV's is to give you control over the rendered image so later decisions can be made / adjustments to components in context of other scenes without re-rendering. If the rendered image looks one way and the AOV's cannot be combined to recreate that exact look, then they are a different set of tools altogether - still useful, but definitely different, giving you control over a *different* image than the one you have been working on - close, but no bananas :) I guess I had a certain expectation that the rendered image is hiding behind settings I'm unaware of, or boxes that need checking / unchecking. It was a fairly draining experience trying everything under the sun, researching endless past threads, only to discover that "for internal reasons" (made me LOL) "the rendered image and sum of the composite will never be exactly the same", and I could have saved a lot of headache if I'd known that from the get go. Many, many historical threads of this type that always dwindle into "Me too!" and shrugs, with no answers or definitive outcomes.
  8. Just gotta pipe in, I've blown another few hours scouring this site, and I haven't found a single thread anywhere where anybody just fronts it and admits the plain facts: You can't get an accurate beauty pass render from C4D multipasses, the tech just doesn't work that way, without HUGE caveats and restrictions, special passes, and major limits, IF you are up to date with latest release, R20. I feel this should be printed in BOLD TYPE in the introduction to any course / article / tutorial on multipass compositing from C4D, because nobody really has the time to experiment like I just have, or, indeed, "...search the site and see if you can find the various posts where this has been asked and answered before...", because I can't find this info anywhere else on this site, and all the tuts and online resources just hit you like it's a groovy way to have a lot of control over your render (as if you have any idea what that really is until you separate the passes - YOU DON'T!) My two cents. Again, if any compositor or experienced render specialist knows any tricks or workarounds, or indeed if anyone can find a thread I've missed where this has all been revealed, I'm all ears. Cheers
  9. I'm pretty much resigned to it being a mess at this stage - didn't mean to come across impatient, just I saw '15 views' and no replies and thought 'Blimey!' It's nothing at all to do with exterior compositing workflows or color profiles - C4D's own render engine can't recreate a beauty pass from it's own multipass system (in R19). Looks like R20 has added 4 extra MultiPass channels - Direct Diffuse, Indirect DIffuse, Direct Specular, Indirect Specular - which *IF* you use PBR materials and PBR Lights, can be additively composited to recreate the C4D beauty pass, as described here: https://help.MAXON.net/us/#DRENDERSETTINGS-RDATA_GROUP_MULTIPASS From the horse's mouth: "With the Multi-Passes that were added in Release 20 it’s possible to correctly additively assemble the finished rendered image from individual Multi-Passes. This was not possible with the previous Multi-Passes." [Emphasis mine] So it's only really been A Thing (being able to accurately recreate the Beauty Pass) since R20, which I still don't have (or rather, have this huge project in R19, and will damn well finish it in R19. I've already learned that particular lesson, LOL. Never upgrade in the middle of a project). So I doubt anybody has had any success with it prior to now, and I promise you I've been hoovering up threads and replies looking for some succor or comfort in my smh amazement ;) Possibly trying the Material Channels might yield different results (closer? further? I've lost the will to live over the last 2 days, so can't be bothered with more experiments), but will probably frame this little nugget I discovered in the MAXON literature and keep it handy for future reference - it's tucked away in the MultiPass text that deals with Reflectance and Specular Layers if you choose either/both of those for your Multi-Pass: " Also note that, for internal reasons, the sum of the layers will never represent the composited image exactly." Seems like that's just the way this particular cookie crumbles, though if anybody here knows any different I'd love to know workarounds / Material Channel options / Prayers and ritual sacrifices that have worked for you. Cheers Daniel
  10. Seriously? Nobody can answer this question? How do you get multipass renders to look anything like their Beauty pass composites as rendered by the standard renderer? Nobody knows how, or why they are so different? MAXON, anybody, any compositors, anyone?
  11. HI I've burned a couple of days and have had enough with tweaking nonsense and reading MAXON's help files. C4D R19.068 Multipass to 32 bit .EXR files with the correct compression etc. All separate files, not a multiple EXR. No Straight Alpha. THE MOST BASIC C4D MULTIPASS QUESTION EVER: If I select a MultiPass with 'Add All Image Layers' and then A/B between the 'Image' Rendered by C4D and the 'MultiPass' Rendered by C4D - using every available channel - the results look NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER. Surely with every channel offered, the composite should resemble the Beauty Pass to the naked eye? The differences are so huge as to make them different scenes, in terms of lighting, shadows, and especially alpha information within the scene. WHY IS THAT? The MultiPass system is basically a fancy tool that ^%@!s your renders, unless ludicrously simplistic and intending to get out of 3D ASAP and into AE or Nuke etc. Am I missing something? Without even going from C4D to a compositing program, without even thinking about Linearized Work Flow or colour profiles, C4D's own picture viewer reveals that your composites cannot possibly match your beauty shots, the shadows and lighting are WAY WAY WAY different, and cannot be 'tweaked' to even marginally resemble the main pass. What The Actual Fudge?
  12. OK, something I doscovered: Transparency is an additive process in the refraction channel! So, adding Refraction (which I'd left out, having no obviosuly transparent materials in the scene) inthe MultiPass gives me a much better - but still not correct - result. OK. So....Anybody? It's still way more opaque than the Beauty pass...How to fix this?
  13. The scene file is 128MB, lots of baked dynamics and so on :( Can anyone help? Why does the MultiPass ignore the Display Tag? Why is the texture/geometry rendering 100% opaque in Multipass instead of 15%, as in the Image Render? ARGH
  14. Hi there I'm trying to get a reasonable approximation of a Beauty Pass using Multipass Image Layers, and it's no picnic. QUESTION: With R19, is it possible to obtain a Multipass that looks like the Beauty Pass? I'm beginning to accept not. My biggest issues are twofold: 1) The Shadow Pass is presented as placed before the Specular, but in a multipass composite, this ^%@!s everything up. Just changing the position to below specularity (or altering the opacity) of the shadow pass seems to yield much closer image results. What gives? Is the order, DIffuse + Shadow + Spec or really DIffuse + Spec and THEN Shadow? 2) The Ambient Pass renders a Sky environment, but also includes 4 x coloured lights with a sweep nurb on a tracer path for 'light trails' as described in the MAXON help files. It's 3d geometry though, rather than a 2d thing. I have a Display Tag attached to the sweeps, setting the 'Visibility' option to 15% - so the light trails are not opaque, very transparent. In the Image render, it looks just how I want it. In the multipass, the Ambient channel shows the sweeps at full opacity, and it really ^%@!s the whole render. There seems no way to fix this. Any clues? It's tough to upload a sample, as the textures etc. make a huge file. Any advice on how to upload something of reasonable size so you can see what I mean? Thanks a lot to any takers. Daniel
  15. Turns out a better answer to my original question was actually "change the Trigger setting in the Dynamics Tag/Dynamics from 'Immediately' where it is by default, to either 'On Collision' or 'At Velocity Peak' and the effectors will continue to function while dynamics can still affect those objects being driven by the effectors.
  16. Thanks, yeah it was the hinge connector made child of the parent I wanted to spin plus a little extra geometry to hook it to, then hide that. Lookin' good!
  17. On the other hand, the issue seems fairly clear: If I apply dynamics tags to clone objects already being effected by effectors, as soon as the dynamics tags are applied, the effectors no longer work (whether rigid body or collision body tags are applied). Is this is a thing? Or is there a setting (apart from force, which I think only applies to keyframes on rigid bodies) that allows effectors to overcome dynamics while still allowing them to function? Do I need to bake the effectors then apply dynamics?
  18. Nope, only <2Mb Not sure how to lower it, I already deleted all the textures etc.
  19. Hi I've a scene with a few cloners dynamically effecting each others objects. All was going well, but I want to use a push-apart effector on dynamically 'ready' clones, so they interact with other clones effectively. The effector is only functional at frame 0 - as soon as the timeline moves, the effector is dsabled and only dynamics works.... Is this 'a thing'? Can I not use effectors on cloners which are dynamically active? Seriously peeved Any advice? Is there a setting that lets both work together? I've tried using the force settings to avail, i can literally move my effector at frame 0 and see it working, advance 1 frame, move it again and it no longer does anything. Cheers for any advice
  20. Is there any simple way to make objects subject to collission dynamics, but fixed about an axis? Best example of what I'm after is those spinning 'gates' on pinball machines - the ball hits the plane in z, and the plane is fixed in the x-axis, hence spins in z either forwards or backwards acording to which direction the ball struck it from. Like that. Do I need to create a hinge and hide the geometry holding it? Thx
  21. Blimey, I do believe I've sussed it out! If anyone who knows more (ie something, anything) about Expresso and the TP workflow than me could let me know if there's a better way please let me know! I'm pretty sure it's accurately doing what I want it to Scene file attached: Thanks for any extra tips, anyone Matrix Emitters_update.c4d
  22. Haha, yes, me too! I'm the intern, someone call the Creative Director! :D
  23. Hi there, thanks for trying to help. No, that's not quite it - I want emitters inside a cloner, inheriting the movement of the emitters. The movement here was from Signal, but I've baked it into keyframes in case you don't have that plugin. Scene file attached - how do I get the particles to inherit the motion from the emitters?? Thanks Matrix Emitters.c4d

YOUTUBE CHANNEL:

ABOUT US:

C4D Cafe is the largest CINEMA 4D community. We provide facilities for discussion, showcasing and learning our favorite software :) Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and much more. If you need to find solution to your problem or otherwise ask for help, Cafe is the right place.
×
×
  • Create New...