#rayman
14 messages in this thread
I haven't seen Rayman advertised recently. Is it still a viable
program?
-Mike
Hi Mike,
We had some advertising in the last CGW issue. Of course is RayMan still
available. We`re beta testing the RayMan 1.5 beta version in this weeks.
The actual selling version (1.02) costs 399 US$ and is available from
Digimation.
The new 1.5 release supports not only animation but also needs much less
memory and has a improved image quality on complex bump maps.
Michael
Thanks,
I am a rayman customer now and was only worried about its future. I
have done some really great images with it. Apart from rendering speed (of
course) it is difficult to go back to the "cartoon" type renderer in 3DS.
Mike,
>> it is difficult to go back to the "cartoon" type renderer in 3DS. <<
that's one of the silliest things I've heard in a while, but it is something of
a common misconception. If things look "cartoony" then that's because of the
artist who created them. Softimage uses raytracing and they have some of the
best "cartoony" style animations I've even seen – in a positive way. I've seen
work in 3d Studio that closely simulated radiosity which approaches reality (in
a fraction of the rendering time). Also the renderer widely considered the best
in the world, Renderman, doesn't use raytracing at all. It's technology is
probably closer to 3ds than a raytracers (scan line, z-buffer etc).
My point is a great artist can create phenomenal things in 3ds, or probably
many other packages too.
Martin
Hi Martin,
I totaly agree with you. The 3DS renderer is one of the best I`ve ever seen. I
think Mike wanted to say that RayMan produces an competely other kind of image
quality than 3DS does. If you don`t use any tricks and create a scene with a
simple 3 light configuration (one key light, one fill light and one ambient
light) and render the scene "quick and dirty", 3DS and RayMan produces very
different images. You can reduce the differences by manual lighting, coloring
(and so on…) techniques but there will always be a different look.
Well, we know that it`s because of the different illumination models but it`s
very impressive to see the differences in reality.
I don`t want to start an other "scanline or raytracing" conference just want
to say that both things have their place in our 3D-(scenes)world. I need both
illumination models (like most other production studios) and maybe Mike needs
raytracing more often than scanline rendering.
There is no reason to say his artistic skill isn`t good enough only because he
thinks 3DS produces cartoon type images…
Michael
Michael,
>> There is no reason to say his artistic skill isn`t good enough only because
he thinks 3DS produces cartoon type images… <<
actually that's a very good reason. I wasn't referring to him, in particular. I
was referring to everybody who has this opinion. They just need to learn how to
use these tools correctly.
sorry folks, this stuff requires some sweat….
Martin
Martin,
I didn't mean to put down 3DS by using the term "cartoon" rendering
(and am willing to apologize) but I couldn't think of a better term for the
subjective judgement I have when I look at the renderings and compare them with
ray tracing. Although I am proud to show my own architectural renderings using
3DS, I am the first to admit they look, well, obviously not real. And I have
this impression with essentially any such renderings. I don't think I have
ever seen a 3DS rendering which I thought was a real object(except with the
use of texture maps which is not the point I am making ). However, I can
still find such images beautiful, creative and intelligent. And this is all
dependent upon the ability of the artist.
On the other hand, with careful attention to detail , lighting etc., I
have created a very few images with Rayman which have been mistaken by others
as photographs of real objects. This is not to say that creating a "real"
image is better than creating a "unreal" image. But having the tools for
closely modeling the physics of light, when appropriate, is something I don't
see in 3DS at this time. That, of course, is why there is a market for Rayman.
Mike
Mike,
now that you've elaborated I can see where you coming from.
However, I still contend that the best production-worthy, industry standard
renderer is not a ray-tracer – it's Renderman, a scan-line renderer.
Furthermore, IMHO the the 3ds renderer, in the right hands, comes pretty close
to Renderman quality. It's all in the lighting. I suggest you investigate the
use of multiple lights with attenuation active, to simulate radiosity.
If you want as close to photo-real as possible AND you are doing stills AND
time is no object, I think you should take a look at radiosity renderers.
Now, if we are talking reflections/refraction then Rayman, may well come into
it's own. I may even buy it myself but only for very limited use for water like
effects. This might be impractical because of the rendering times – because I'm
talking of animation AND film resolution (2k).
Do you know if Rayman will work with metaballs?
Martin
PMJI:
>>Do you know if Rayman will work with metaballs?
Well, good question. Do you mean MetaReyes or the new from Digimation? I don`t
have both (but will have one soon) but if they produce "normal" geometry wich
doesn`t require an .AXP it will work.
Michael
Michael,
>> but if they produce "normal" geometry wich doesn`t require an .AXP it will
work. <<
I was thinking that maybe they would work in their "metaball" state – while
they are still animatable. Oh well.
What is the best way of animating water in rayman, to get good reflections?
Martin
Martin,
>>What is the best way of animating water in rayman, to get good
>>reflections?
Well, there are may forms of water. A basic water surface of an ocean is very
easy by using a waved or rippled grid with a few morphs between the different
objects. To simulate water blobs or flowing liquid it would like to use
metaballs but I think we have to wait for RayMan 2.0 for 3DSMAX.
BTW: a nice water effect is the use of different materials. You can assign a
different refraction index to each material and then morph between them. This
simulates molecular whorls in the water. That`s what makes water looks like
real!
The render caustic option of RayMan is very helpful, too.
Do you want to be part of the RayMan 1.5 beta test team? I can send you the
actual beta release via e-mail if you want. I believe that MetroLight would be
a great tester…
Michael
Martin,
Thanks for the comments. I do a lot of animation and the raytracer is
hopeless for this situation, so your suggestion is helpful. As for Metaballs, I
haven't used it in my work -yet.
Mike
Mike,
>> I do a lot of animation and the raytracer is hopeless for this situation,
so your suggestion is helpful. <<
you're welcome. I've seem some amazing "radiosity-like" images done in 3ds.
Martin
I think you`ll be happy with the new version. Animation support, much better
bump maps, and improved rendering speed are only some of the new features. I`ll
upload a raytraced animation (rendered with an alpha version of RayMan 1.5)
sometimes next week.
Michael