scottmoore

Member
  • Content count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Great

1 Follower

About scottmoore

  • Rank
    Journeyman

Personal Information

  • Homepage
    www.goliveproductions.com
  • Location
    Nashville, TN
  1. That is odd. I recall in the early days of Vision seeing a demo of a song by Evanesssence I believe that included gerbs. I never had cause to use them but assumed that was part of Vision's functionality.
  2. I am not sure what you mean by "quadrants" beyond what Sam just mentioned.
  3. Andy, I completely agree. Also, after 20 years or so in MiniCad and VW I don't think I ever realized I could name a RW light object. Thanks for that.
  4. Andy, thank you for posting. The more people we can get on board with these concepts the better. As to the "channel" and "purpose" comment, much appreciated and I am aware of that when using instruments designed to work with Spotlight. I do that as well. What I am talking about is using lighting objects such as point sources (for ambient light) and more likely spotlight lighting objects. This avoids the need for focus points and for actually having to render a fixture. Mjm, I totally agree that Vision is not up to speed for photo-realistic rendering. Having the ability to use a streamlined version of Vision with a simple, on board console to effectively "light" a scene and then going back into renderworks to render it is what I was thinking. Also, to confuse the issue, it would be nice to be able to utilize Vision's superior atmospheric effects (light beams starting at the size of the fixture apperature and following the law of squares as opposed to the embarrasing volumetrics we have now) and still use renderworks. Since Vision uses OpenGL, that will probably never happen so I am holding out to see if the developers will allow us, even for an additional fee, to have similar control over the volumetrics in the current rendering engine that is already available in C4D. The point if all of this is that all this functionality already exists. We know how to draw in VW. Can we just have access to the control???? I would pay extra for that.
  5. I am going to add a bit to my above post. The issue for me, and for many designers, including the OP Fabrice, is the project pipeline and how we work with our clients. In a nut shell, it works like this: 1.) Initial meetings with client, director, producer or whatever parties are required to get started on a project 2.) Initial design which can be presented as still images, walk throughs, videos, or even VR. In my case, these are almost always still images that are either sent out as multiple PDFs or perhaps strung together in a slide show. occasionally I may do a walk-through, but there is seldom time for that. These need to be high quality renders and, frankly, Renderworks is more than capable as it stands to do most of what we need. It does it slowly, but it certainly works with no need for outputting to another platform for texturing or post processing or anything else. My only real concern with Renderworks, which is beyond the scope of Fabrice's initial post is that the parent company does no allow access to suitable volumetric lighting effects even though the rendering engine is certainly capable of it. That is a serious point of contention for me. 3.) Major or minor adjustments are made to the design to accommodate the requests of client, director, producer, the budget or any other stimulus. This alone is reason enough to want to stay inside one application. If I need to make revisions, I need to make them with no concerns about what I then have to "re-do" in another application such as Cinema 4D. There is often no time for that. It is important to note that, at least in my case, items 1 through 3 often happen very quickly. I am currently on a project that I am designing (a televised awards show) for which I was only contacted two weeks ago and the event loads-in in four days from now. From the point I started conceptualizing the project to a first set of multiple renderings was two days. I did eight revisions yesterday, each with two final quality renders over the course of three hours. For me there just is no time to mess around with exporting into another program simply to have the full use of the functionality that is currently locked up in the VW rendering engine. In the past ten years I have no idea how many projects I have designed, but there has only been one that had significant enough lead time to involve other rendering options. 4.) Once the final design is approved, the drawings are then cleaned up for the fabrication shops, and the production staff/vendors. This is where VW really shines as the resulting plan views, sections, elevations and isometrics tend to look great. 5.) At that point, and only at that point, do we get into pre-visualization whether that is something I do or someone else, assuming the project calls for it. So herein lies the frustration with the Vision/VW relationship and is exactly what Fabrice is pointing to: The functionality for most of what is requested is currently available through Vision. For all of us, we need a simple way to add some lights, turn them on, do the various things that designers do with them, and then focus them (without going through the time consuming process of adding focus points) and WITHOUT having to address them, assign them to a universe, then fax through all of that and trouble shoot issues, so that we can present beautiful images that we can SELL to clients. Once the SELLING is done, then we can get into all the cool Vision functionality for pre-visualization but certainly NOT before. Having some simple method of getting at the core concepts of Vision to "set the scene" and then porting that back into VW would solve nearly all of the issues Fabrice is noting. We don't have to hang an entire lighting plot; we just need enough lights to sell the idea and that might be 20 or it might be 200. To add to what Fabrice has said, I need the volumetric qualities of OPEN GL Vision with the realistic textures and reflections of Renderworks as volumetric lighting effects are a big part of almost all of my projects and what we have now is laughable. I understand that the parent company needs to sell software. My frustration is that we are already spending a pretty hefty chunk of change on VW and most of us can design what we need to design within it's framework without the need to use another program. The functionality of Vision is already there, the rendering engine is already there. If we could just have access to what already exists, there would be a lot of users that would be very, very happy. To get through the first three steps of the process, the steps that actually sell a project, we need some limited access to Vision functionality. For a lot of users, that is the only amount of Vision functionality they would ever need. If we are going to do legitimate pre-vis, then we would certainly need to purchase Vision. (I was a very early adopter if Vision by the way) We also need a bit more control over light objects which the rendering engine clearly can do, it's just that VW users are not given access to that functionality. So that is my position in a verbose nutshell. One other side item to add and Fabrice touched on this as well: I often add standard light objects to illuminate parts of my models. I do this for a few reasons, including, not needing to see the source lighting fixture and finding it much quicker to focus, and often easier to adjust other parameters as well. What would be great is if there was some way to "name" those elements so you know which one is which in the Visualization Palette. Currently the 1.00.11.1.0 or whatever is just not helpful. Currently I just class the daylights (possible pun intended) out of all those items so I can turn things on and off, but the Vis Palette would be extremely useful. Oh, and a real projector...... (love the idea of a camera viewport built into it)
  6. Any movement on this issue from The developers? Any improvement in 2018???
  7. Fabrice, I absolutely agree with you and this is a drum I have been banging do the past seven years. Without going into a world of detail on each of your very valid points, I will say the following: it seems that utilizing Vision to accomplish much of this would be a viable way to go for VW developers. Vision renders in OpenGL in real time and allows for fixture focus, gobo focus color functions and shutter cuts with ease. It has been suggested that VW include a simple "console" function in spot light that allowed for pan/tilt, intensity, color, gobo, shutter control, etc. It should also include a "fan" feature for selected fixtures. It doesn't need to do anything more than that. To me, the question is how to take an image from Vision and render it in Renderworks. As to gobos, I spent a while creating a library of hard and soft edged patterns so I have quick access to a wide variety patterns. Creating new ones is pretty quick. Of course, having a focus feature would be much better. I would also also agree that a working projector would be a fantastic addition and has been suggested. Until then I have been muddling by with pattern projection to accomplish this. Not ideal but somewhat serviceable. I think it's reall a question of how much functionality the developers are willing to port from Cinema4D to VW. They, of course, would prefer for us all to purchase both VW and C4D. I understand that, but I already know my way around VW and it really does do pretty much everything I need it to do.We just need some better interface options and for VW to output my work in a more useful way. Dont get get me started on volumetric rendering.......
  8. If you are doing that many, clearly the lamps are going to be fairly small and if render times are important, then I would use an image prop. I've done this a few times and it works. It's not nearly as elegant as some of the above suggestions but you can get the point across. Perhaps a little post work to tart it up. These are trade-offs, but that is what I would suggest.
  9. I've done these with image props. It's best done in post, but if you just need to show a client the effect, an image prop will do it.
  10. I will suggest going back and looking at Andy Dunning's concept of the Design Layer Viewport. It seems like a silly, convoluted workaround at first but once you understand the process and the benefits, it's actually extremely cool and I use it all the time for anything that is raked or anything that is automated. You can place everything exactly where you want it in 3D space and still maintain accurate 2D models for you shop staff. The latter is a huge selling point. Once you rake a truss, what do you do for accurate shop drawings? This approach allows you, without any extra effort, to produce detailed plan views of every structure in your rig and it is basically laid out "flat on the floor" exactly the way the shop staff preps it. No silly wireframe nonsense. You cannot do that with a generically raked structure. Another benefit is that moving a truss structure on your plot in any direction (X, Y or Z) moves EVERYTHING associated with it regardless of which classes were turned on or off or how you selected all those items. Now truss, lights, softgoods, scenic elements, video elements all move together with a SINGLE click. You can't do that with a generically raked structure. Lastly, adding fixtures to an already raked truss is now no different than adding a fixture, or any other element for that matter, to a flat truss. Need to add a truss border after a meeting with the production designer? Easy as adding a soft good to any straight element. You can't do that either with a generically raked structure. I seriously recommend this approach.
  11. I agree with Josh. I have a set of classes in my template file simply for render lights. One of those classes is labeled "ambient" and I'll put a point source there. Sometimes multiple sources to reveal what I need to reveal. I set those lights to color by class so I can completely change the overall ambient experience. Regardless, I get to control all of that without relying on the generic VW ambient light.
  12. I have seen plenty of quirky things like this. Often, the answer can be relaunching the file. Sometimes you have to replace the lighting fixtures. Sometimes refreshing the lighting fixtures (command+/) will do the trick. Question; did you happen to use final quality renderworks to render your scene PRIOR to focus all of your fixtures? There is a known bug that I refer to a "render cache" where occasionally the final quality render style will simply load a previously rendered image as opposed to tracking current updates to the drawing. The solution here, unfortunately, is to re-launch the file. A re-start of the application is usually not necessary. Very tedious indeed.
  13. ...and thank you for all the very helpful suggestions.
  14. Actually, the Brograph team are subcontractors of mine and developed that lighting tool due to a large project we collaborated on in 2014.
  15. I have been considering Cinema 4D with the Octane rendering engine simply because it will do what I need it to do. This is really disappointing though for the following reasons: - the expense of another major application platform. Of course, this is truly the crux of the biscuit as Maxon would rather us purchase another product than give us what we need in a single product. - the learning curve - my assumption is that I would create all the geometry in VW then export to C4D and add textures and lighting there. The issue occurs when you need to start revising a project. Then you have to determine how to go back to VW, make changes, then I suppose merge those changes into C4D and then make all the necessary updates to lighting and texturing. Very clunky. - I believe the upside is that Octane rendering will be faster than renderworks by a huge order of magnitude. Also, the end result will look better. But this is all extremely frustrating to me.