Evaluating LightUp / IDX / Podium

honoluludesktop · 24 Mar 2009, 19:54

Sepo and Adam, Thanks for the info. I am working on making the table more understandable. Adam, I added "render for dynamic walk through" as a item. Can someone tell me how a sky box functions?

Miguel, thanks for the heads up, I will look into all of them. Keep in mind that this is a review of software that cost less then half of SU. While others would consider it, I do not think it elegant to spend more on render software, then the modeler.

Ecuadorian · 24 Mar 2009, 21:36

Honoluludesktop, don't forget to add these other basic features to your list:

"Fuzzy" (blurred) reflections. This is a must for all metallic materials.
"Fuzzy" transparencies. Without them, there is no way to have frosted glass in your renders.
Translucency. Without it, vegetation leaves look fake, and shoji paper screens ever faker.
Caustics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)
Projector lights.
Volumetric light, for rendering god rays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_rays
Integrated fog rendering.
Soft shadows for omni lights
Ability to use a spherical sky image and rotate it freely
Exposure controls
Ability to change the color of the sun

All these are standard features in major rendering programs now.

honoluludesktop · 25 Mar 2009, 05:09

Well, I did more work with Podium, and IDX in their default settings. The results are posted in the table above. Most of the current clarifications have to deal with the way SU environment selections, and settings are utilized. I did not look at LightUp in this regards.

Comments and corrections welcomed.

notareal · 25 Mar 2009, 12:54

@honoluludesktop said:

Keep in mind that this is a review of software that cost less then half of SU. While others would consider it, I do not think it elegant to spend more on render software, then the modeler.

That is a matter of taste... some sell raw diamonds, some cut diamonds and some ideally cut diamonds. "Same stuff" in different package, production cost do vary, so do render programs and the value they give to your work.
I think there is a flaw in your logic, sorry. If some render program do have a crucial feature that you need in your work and there is no work around for that - would you still care the cost, knowing that with investing to a proper tool, the value of your work is higher. I am not suggesting that expensive render package is necessary any better than a low cost or a free one, but it might be, if it has a feature in need or in some cases you might pay from nothing.

brodie · 25 Mar 2009, 16:01

@notareal said:

@honoluludesktop said:

Keep in mind that this is a review of software that cost less then half of SU. While others would consider it, I do not think it elegant to spend more on render software, then the modeler.

That is a matter of taste... some sell raw diamonds, some cut diamonds and some ideally cut diamonds. "Same stuff" in different package, production cost do vary, so do render programs and the value they give to your work.
I think there is a flaw in your logic, sorry. If some render program do have a crucial feature that you need in your work and there is no work around for that - would you still care the cost, knowing that with investing to a proper tool, the value of your work is higher. I am not suggesting that expensive render package is necessary any better than a low cost or a free one, but it might be, if it has a feature in need or in some cases you might pay from nothing.

I'd have to agree with this. It all depends on what your doing. It would be silly for a photographer to have a rule that he won't spend more on the set design, lighting, and camera than for the model he's shooting. However, if you don't need a refined photograph of the model or you're willing to put in a lot of time in photoshop, then maybe a $29.99 Sponge Bob camera from Walmart would be fine.

-Brodie

honoluludesktop · 25 Mar 2009, 19:55

I don't disagree. It is a matter of personal taste, preference, emphasis, budget, etc.

wmanning · 1 Apr 2009, 21:26

Sorry I missed this earlier. A few clarifications on IDX Renditioner...

Imported images render fine without being exploded, as long as you don't have alpha channel transparency (our big missing link at the moment).

Materials applied to groups or components, included nested groups/components render accurately without exploding. Therefore it supports dynamic components. That's one of our big workflow plusses.

Another + is supporting all material changes made in the SketchUp material browser.

And the good news: all three apps are making it easy for architects to start rendering without having to learn much of anything!

Thanks,
William

Gaieus · 2 Apr 2009, 13:06

@wmanning said:

And the good news: all three apps are making it easy for architects to start rendering without having to learn much of anything!

That's definitely a great plus of all these apps. Although I wouldn't count myself to be a total beginner and idiot at rendering (have tried a couple of them and getting to know all those little tricks with clipping, bumping, reflections, refractions and whatnot), often you don't want to make a meticulously elaborate render and a fast setup for (pre?)visualization is very important and useful.

(And yes, William, a support for alpha maps - as there's no separate "slot" for clipmaps - would be very cool,indeed!)

honoluludesktop · 2 Apr 2009, 23:57

OK Gaieus. Added a slot for clipmap. Have seen references to it, and examples, but am not sure how it is used, or if LightUp uses it.

Gaieus · 3 Apr 2009, 01:52

I meant IDX Renditioner.

honoluludesktop · 3 Apr 2009, 09:07

I have never seen reference to clip map in the IDX documentation, please correct me if I am wrong. What is a clip map?

sepo · 3 Apr 2009, 10:12

Clipmap is same as alpha. Used for cliping. Podium can use clipmaps but easier way is just to use transparent .png. Also SU supports transparent .png.
Honolulu can you explain what is SU View as final render scene. Not sure what does it mean.

honoluludesktop · 3 Apr 2009, 20:43

Thanks, for the info, guess since I have never used one, I really wouldn't understand it.

SU view as final render scene is when you render the SU scene in a window, and "what you see is what you get". That is the rendered image is the composition in in the SU window, the same as when you export a 2d image from SU. For lazy guys like me, this saves time spent on cropping the final image.

My bias for a easy to use render, is for the purposes of presentation. I realize that the primary function of the software is to produce a quality ray-trace, but for me, that is only the first step in the process. The more that I can do with the render software; using background images, foreground images, contrast controls, and perhaps even sprites, the better. But I don't mean complicated stuff, that is best executed in post processing. Typically the client is coming tomorrow morning, we finally got the redesign right and need a sketch (not final) presentation.

Gaieus · 3 Apr 2009, 22:05

@honoluludesktop said:

I have never seen reference to clip map in the IDX documentation, please correct me if I am wrong. What is a clip map?

This is why I answered to William's comment...

@wmanning said:

...Imported images render fine without being exploded, as long as you don't have alpha channel transparency (our big missing link at the moment)...

William

...that this alpha support would be cool. Since in IDX there are no "additional slots" for different maps (the real time bump map preview created from the diffuse image is great for instance - in some other apps you also need to add the bump separately)

honoluludesktop · 4 Apr 2009, 05:42

Got it, thanks. Go here for evaluation table.

Gaieus · 4 Apr 2009, 12:25

Yup, I've seen that. Cool table - very useful.

sepo · 4 Apr 2009, 22:56

Honolulu Podium can render exact what you see in SU. It is called vieport resolution. You can also choose 2x viewport resolution. Makes very easy overlaying line drawing from SU. So yes Podium supports it.

honoluludesktop · 5 Apr 2009, 05:00

OK thanks; Guess viewport resolution was not available with the trial version. At least I did not see it. Will change the table on Monday when I am in my Office.

Gaieus · 5 Apr 2009, 09:39

@honoluludesktop said:

Guess viewport resolution was not available with the trial version...

That can easily happen as there's a max. resolution (500x500) that you can render with the eval version (I guess kost users' screen resolution is higher than that nowadays).

What I know besides this is that both Kerkythea and IDX Renditioner can render SU viewport so there's a good choice you can try out.

Example (model: SU 6 Pro - render: IDX Renditioner with the same viewport)

[flash=640,400:woic4v02]http://www.youtube.com/v/thuEv7K2FGU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0[/flash:woic4v02]

honoluludesktop · 7 Apr 2009, 18:57

Sepo, I revised table at top of page. Deleted item from table because all support this feature.