Very nice animation!

[nelg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHD8Xf5Rnvo&feature=player_embedded

The 110 days of rendering was well spent.

 

[digitalwanderer]

W.T.F.

 

[Simon F]

Hmmm.. animated "Top Gear".

 

[homerdog]

Ffff...

 

[Grall]

Meh.

Uber-shiny cars with perfect surfaces and precsion just ISN'T very impressive. That's an ideal case for a computer to render, and it produces very un-lifelike results.

Besides, american automotive design = headache in my eyes. No style, no thought or rationale, just big, tall, clumsy-looking bluff-faced vehicles that supposedly are supposed to look "powerful". (Yes, I noticed the Vaz thrown in there just to throw a wrench in the works of my reasoning, lol.)

Also, the author displays an astounding lack of taste in music. Bad video soundtrack is BAAAAAAD...

 

[MPI]

Wonder if jadedness will be to the '00s what irony was to the '90s. Let's hope so... it's getting old by now.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I gotta say, even though I'm not sure what it is it IS impressive as hell.

 

[Florin]

I sincerely envy the author's ability to create.

And I think that this is proof that crack isn't all negative, and can be a powerful creative stimulus.

 

[DudeMiester]

http://maxwellrender.com/gallery/index.php?album=version-2&image=048.jpg&p=*full-image

Now if only he used the renderer that did that! Mind you it would probably take a month to do, lol.

 

[Squeak]

http://maxwellrender.com/gallery/index.php?album=version-2&image=048.jpg&p=*full-image

Now if only he used the renderer that did that! Mind you it would probably take a month to do, lol.

That's just detailed modelling and texturing. The renderer looks rather simple. Just look at the lighting.

Anyway, this thread is a perfect example of a very common ailment of these times of easily learned software packages and fast computers. It's pretty easy to achieve a very polished and refined surface, that the general public still associates with high quality content, even though the most important thing behind it all, the good idea and artistic talent, is lacking.

 

[Simon F]

That's just detailed modelling and texturing. The renderer looks rather simple. Just look at the lighting..

No... the computer painted the pictures on the wall as well.

 

[DudeMiester]

Actually, that renderer simulates the spectrum of visible light, and nothing is precomputed. You just set the material parameters (SSS, roughness, absorption, thin films, etc...), lens settings (DOF, fStop, shutter speed, diffraction, etc...), define lights, and that image is what you get. All of the caustics and internal reflections in the glass are simulated. Every single shadow is simulated. It's all output in floating point, optionally with full instant re-light capability. It's pretty cool, just a bit slow. That's why I find it interesting.

It was initially developed from an engineering software for simulating electromagnetic waves. Same people who did RealFlow also.

Maybe this close up better captures what I'm saying: http://maxwellrender.com/gallery/index.php?album=version-2&image=054.jpg&p=*full-image
See the caustic/spectral effects: http://maxwellrender.com/gallery/index.php?album=technical&image=025.jpg&p=*full-image
Some random car in an HDRI environment: http://maxwellrender.com/images/casestudies/corvid/SV_0045.jpg
A watery thing: http://s186.photobucket.com/albums/x267/Bubbaloo1974/?action=view&current=GlassPouring.jpg

Unfortunately, it doesn't do polarization, so you can only hack thinks like birefringence using multiple IOR layers.

 

[Squeak]

Nevertheless, they don't look very impressive to me. They look like 80's radiosity/raytrace renders.
It might be a good tool for doing rendersetups quickly, but to get the photorealism it is not.

 

[DudeMiester]

I can see why you'd say that, many of the materials lack the necessary grittiness of reality, which gives it the raytraced look. It is a somewhat new renderer, however, so give it some time to mature.

I will say this, I don't think you'll get much photo-surrealism from it. That is, images that diverge from reality in order to be visually appealing. When I see images from vray and other renderers, I often find they have that effect, which is probably more desirable. My interest in this one is mainly a technical curiosity, however.

 

[Tchock]

I've seen better images come out of Maxwell

Not many people seem to get displacement right (scale and materials alone are headache-y enough) so grittiness isn't too perfect. But yeah, if BRDF parameters are set correctly with proper lighting you should be able to scare people easily.