Luxrender - any comments and renders
sahebfahmi_18ba20182a
Posts: 33
Guys,
Just a quick one... do any of you use Luxrender to render their images? can you upload the most impresive one of them (architectural interior and exterior).
Is it easy to use? any major bug issues? does it worth really to buy it? I know it is so so cheap but your comments are important for me.
Thanks in advance to all.
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
Have you looked at the thread here? http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/22779/
Yes but that was a generic discussion (I think)
Any more please?
I'm still working on learning how to use Luxus. You can find a bunch of my test renders in the thread that was posted previously.
I had used Luxrender before with Daz Studio and Reality 2.
Luxus in Carrara seems easier to use and get a good picture with than Reality 2 in Daz. With Reality, it always seemed like it didn't matter how long the pictures rendered, it was still going to end up grainy for me. I didn't know enough or take enough time to set up all the surfaces properly and with Luxrender, that's very, very important.
I haven't hit anything I'd consider a bug with Luxus. You have to be careful with procedural textures within a Luxus material but the Luxus materials work well with Texture Maps so you can always bake those procedurals down.
There are some things that it can't do or work with. There's no support for the Carrara Realistic Skies or for things like fire or clouds. OTOH, you do get volumetric shaders which Carrara doesn't normally support.
I'll definitely be getting a lot of use out of this and it was definitely worth the money.
Many thanks thepencilneck I appreciate your reply. Any architectural (interior or exterior) images you did that you post hete please.
Pics are around, but I'm not reposting them. It hasn't really been out long enough to build up a large catalog of images.
In my opinion it is certainly worth the $21 on sale. Only YOU know if it is worth fussing with a second renderer and working out the process of getting Carrara to send the scene to LuxRender - it's not a hard process, but it is a process. There are also SO MANY settings that I can't begin to know what the options are, the names are cryptic and the LuxRender site wasn't immediately helpful... If you are impatient with experimenting or need it all to be spelled out for you in a user-friendly way you may be frustrated. I'd put the difficulty level at around 5/10 to get started..., but possibly 8/10 to get in deep (I can't say I am honestly deep yet, but there is definitely a wall when it comes to looking at the Luxus settings in the Carrara render interface....
What is nice about it: being able to adjust the light values while it is rendering. People *do* seem to be impressed with images looking "like photos" - although to my eye it still looks 3D and there are some flaws in the shadows (white pixels, overall speckles). In my opinion it is very good at the lighting, not as good at the surfaces/shaders, but light alone is probably enough to get the nice eye-pop look that people mistake for a photo. Architecture does seem to be it's "ideal" niche, so far, but I am seeing nice skin too in other people's renders....
Will it do everything for you and make a sandwich while you take a nap? No. There is a lot of setup work with the Lux shaders (we're talking EVERY SHADER in the scene). It is slow, but not too different from Carrara's HDR IBL at higher settings. Since you need to turn off the render yourself the phrase "looks good enough" will be one you start to use...
Better than Carrara's IBL? in some ways yes, but not 100%... Looks to me like using LuxRender (or Carrara's IBL) you are probably going to want to render 2x larger and then scale down in post to hide the pixel artifacts. Carrara's IBL has dark "ashy" artifacts. LuxRender has white "speckle" artifacts. Beware, this will take even LONGER to render...
Can you get a "good" image without knowing what you are doing? Yes, but you will need a "good eye" to mix the light values realistically. It's a bit ironic to hear all about the "realistic light model interaction of photon bla bla bla" then grab a slider while it's rendering and completely redial the light. Huh? It's "completely based on real light" except the part where you can totally adjust it after the fact. okaaaay. I *wish* you could do that with real light... lol.
I am not a fan of waiting forever on a render I can see lots of small flaws in, however I have gotten those "omg it's a photo" reactions which is very likely the golden grail of 3D.... YMMV.
Architectural interiors and exteriors are very much the forte of this renderer compared to Carrara's standard renderer, especially interiors I would say. See the "bar" image that I posted on the other thread. If this is your area, I would not hesitate - and it is only going to get better! My belief is that the future is in unbiased physically based renderers like Lux, and this is a great way to start using one.
I'm not going to re-post images from the other thread into this one.
Here's an image that I threw together just for this.
This is Tomalin's Aslan Court 2 without any modification. I just dropped it into Carrara, positioned the camera, put in a Luxus Sky for a light, and generated the picture.
I was getting a lot of speckling in this one. I let it run for a while and then tweaked the film a little bit to make the contrast a little more. If I were using this for a "real" picture, I'd take it into GIMP and tweak the contrast even more.
EDIT: Oh, and if I were doing this "for real", I'd go in and tweak all the textures.
Actually... I'm starting to suspect that the issues I've got with graininess are coming because I haven't tweaked the textures.
A lot of the stock textures either have a non-black highlight or a 0% reflection set. I noticed in some early renders that I did that those settings ended up getting less than great results.
Later tonight when I have some time, I'm going to go through and tweak all the textures and try this picture again.
I'm also DYING to take those hanging globes and convert them to glass or shiny metal. That could look awesome.
I never saw the top of this dome... That is a really nice set! I regret not getting it when it was first on sale, but I'll wishlist it...
When I have some time off (after the weekend) I will go through and save a set of base textures to explore the Lux texture options.... I also need to reload 3DPO so I can get previews in the Carrara Browser again... I think just having a proper set of starter shaders would make setting up so much faster.... Will be a good learning project too.
Here is a nice posting on the graininess / noise in a render from lux. The why and how to correct
http://preta3d.com/Kill the render noise form your Lux scenes/
Not Carrara specific
Yeah, I spent HOURS on that page when I was first futzing with Reality. And what I think Paolo is missing here is that... I don't want to see in the dark. I want my blacks to be black. I don't want little dots in the blackness.
I don't think that's an issue with Reality or with Luxus but I do think it's an issue with Luxrender.
I've got a version of the Aslan 2 picture going right now. I'm letting it run to give it the benefit of the doubt on the grainy-ness.
killjoy :) < that is a smiley but there are still busted
Very helpful, thank you
I read it quickly and will read it a few more times to let it sink in.
Since I am new to unbiased rendering, it seems to me that you need some ambient light even when you have dark areas in a render.
Is it accurate to say you have to create the ambient light in the scene in a way it can be used in the Lux redering engine?
Very helpful, thank you
I read it quickly and will read it a few more times to let it sink in.
Since I am new to unbiased rendering, it seems to me that you need some ambient light even when you have dark areas in a render.
Is it accurate to say you have to create the ambient light in the scene in a way it can be used in the Lux redering engine?
That's one way to look at it. You can also look at it like you can't have too wide a range between the brights and the darks. When you have multiple lights, though. Some of them that are particularly less energetic will develop spots.
Here's a variation of the other picture. In this first one, I created a big grid mesh and placed it behind the camera to illuminate the foreground columns. The second one is the first one with a little post-work to up the contrast.
holly wetcircuit
thepencilneck
cdordoni
Milo
Dartanbeck
Many thanks guys for your advises and comments, you really gave a good input about it.
PhilW
Thanks mate, you said it is good at architectural scenes and that is what I am interesting in, especially interiors, I tried Carrara but was frustrated not to get realistic outcomes.
I'll go with it and see what I can get, I am sure with such good guys like you I'll get the help I need whenever I need it.
Here's an example of an architectural exterior. I used the alpha channel to put in a photo background, adjusted levels slightly and blurred the foreground a little for a slight Depth of Field effect. The model is Blenworth Castle. The only lighting was Lux SunSky2.
Thanks mate, it looks good.
how long it took.
As I am a novice and if you some time can you hust tell me how to do all of that, I mean to use the alpha channel to put in photo background?
Thanks again
I think it was rendered for a couple of hours, but only because I left it running while I went out, I'm sure it would have looked pretty much the same in a much shorter time. In Luxrender, you can select the option in the menu to save with Alpha channel, then save as a .png file (.jpg doesn't support alpha channels) and load into Photoshop or your favourite image editor, and any area where you can see through to the sky will be transparent. Then just drop in a photo or other image on a layer behind the render.
Understood, good thinking.
Thanks mate.
I noticed that Luxrender keeps rendering,I am still reading and experimenting but until the result are always with grain, still trying.
The amount of grain depends on a number of factors and tends to be more noticeable in areas without direct light. It is generally recommended to run scenes to over 1,000 S/px, but this is scene dependent. I have scenes that look great at a lot lower then this, or scenes that still show noticeable grain (although fairly subtle) at over 4,000 S/px.
It is a new way of rendering and takes a little time to understand and adapt to using renderers like Lux - but I firmly believe that these type of renderers are the future in 3D. I am hoping for a leap in speed and performance with the next release of luxrender (1.3) which promises integrated GPU rendering support.
Thanks PhilW for the information and yes I hope the speed and quality be better and better.
I really hope if someone makes a qucik tutorial on youtube to explain what you explained and expand to cover it.
Many thanks and might come back later with more questions.
HI PhilW :)
You can use GPU and CPU together in the current build,.
Set the main options to Hybrid, and select path, or direct lighting.
That should use any GPU available,. plus the CPU.
I believe the next release 1.3 is scheduled to integrate the SLG renderer into the main hybrid renderer. If you have ever tried this, you will know how blisteringly fast that can be! Currently when I use GPU support, it ends up rendering slower and with more artifacts (for my machine at least). I am hoping that the new release will bring Lux up to Octane-like performance, or at least close.
Hi
I haven't been able to purchase the Carrara Luxus plugin yet but I've used Luxrender via Blender for a while now.
Although this certainly isn't a masterpiece of a 3D render by any stretch of the imagination, it's a decent example of how a little bit of light can go a long way with Luxrender.
1 sun only light source + 1 sky only light source and a Luxrender "portal" covering the window was enough to light the entire room. I added a tiny bit of Chromatic Aberration through Lux's lens effect options.
It's just over the 300 S/p mark after around 3-4 hours, still a little on the "fuzzy" side but it'll clear up eventually.
beautiful work Koukotsu, you certainly have a stable of beautiful girls at your disposal.!
Thanks Head Wax, it's mostly "The many different face's of Sarsa's Mulberry for Aiko 3" character from me though, I love this little dolly, lol.
Oh, and for anyone who may be wondering if LuxBlend is a viable alternative to Carrara/Luxus, I'll go ahead and say that rendering Carrara scenes in Luxrender through Blender is a horrendously tedious pain in the you-know-what that I wouldn't wish on anyone!
PhilW and Koukotsu,
What do you mean by the ((1,000 S/px)) or other values that ends up with s/xp, where is this and what does it mean, there is nothing in the render room that could be sat, only the few parameters at the top and that is iit so where what you are talking about please.
At the bottom right of the Luxrender interface, under the image panel, you will see an area labelled Statistics which gives various information about your render - how long the render has been running, how many threads you are using etc. The next number will give the number of samples per pixel (labelled S/p) and you should see this increasing as the render progresses. Luxrender runs as long as you want it to, it never ends by itself (unless there is a limit applied, usually when you are doing frames for an animation). The renderer keeps adding samples which refine the image and reduce noise. When the image gets to the point that you are happy with it, save the image and exit from Luxrender.
I have seen a general recommendation to use at least 1,000 S/p for a clear image. I would treat this as a general guideline only, I have seen images that look great (and not going to get significantly better) with say 200 S/p and others which still have some noise at 3-4 kS/p (over 1000, the number reads in kiloSamples). A lot depends on the lighting and materials you have in your scene, so use your eyes and your common sense - it also depends how long you can wait! The longer a render runs, the less impact each new sample will have, so the image refines quickly at first and then gradually slower and slower.
I hope this helps.
First of all, many thanks for your prompt response.
I understand now, so it is not a parameter that you can change inside Carrara! so you have to wait and see, but does this amount change due to changing the surface integrator type?
Now I would like to ask you mate, is there in the render room anything that you can control other than the first panel at the top? I mean if you selected the surface integrator as exphotonmap, is there anywhere you can specify the photon number or change any pf its parameter?
Thanks in advance for your help mate.