KT 2008 Echo Edition Teaser!!
-
Haven't seen you for a while, Kwistenbiebel... Good to see you again...
@kwistenbiebel said:
Any improvements in the pipeline (KT2008), regarding the 'biased' render methods and the physical sky ?
Regarding the physical sky, I know what you mean (something about adding ozone - right??), but we haven't put any efforts in this for KT2008...
I suggest that you use HDRI-probes, which - in addition - will make your exterior renders more realistic...Regarding the biased render methods, you'll see a combined MLT + BPT preset and most of the render methods have been fine-tuned and optimized...
But apart from these, you will see many other improvements and enhancements...
Perhaps the Mac port being the most important...
But also the new Material editor, the instancing brush, the networking feature, Grouping feature, IES lights, and much, much more...!!
I've just made a quick render with some Xfrog 3D trees, which users can insert very easily from the models menu and subsequently populate using the instancing brush...
Nothing fancy... It only took about 10 mins to set up and 15 mins to render...
-
@Frederick,
Sounds promising.By the way, I love the lawnmower in that 'KT echo' image you posted. It seems he has a sh*tload of work to do
-
@kwistenbiebel said:
By the way, I love the lawnmower in that 'KT echo' image you posted. It seems he has a sh*tload of work to do
Yeah... I agree with you...!
I got him from FormFonts... -
I like what I see, when will it be available?
any significance to the name Echo?
-
quoting Claudio (Clipi) from the KT forums....
@unknownuser said:
Well have you know Kerkythea has a greek touch since it was born there.
So I suggested to use the "ECHO" name to represent one of the preponderant features of the forthcoming release, which is Instancing brush.In greek mythology ECHO was a nymph punished by Hera for being so talkative, she was cursed to repeat over and over the last words said by other pearsons. That is the escence of Instancing, repeating the same object over and over..
pretty wild eh?? LOL!
and it should be avaible towards the end of this month,.... next week is a reasonable guesss! -
Interesting response, thanks
I wait with anticipation.
-
well we certainly hope it does live upto the expectations!! and i am pretty sure it will!
-
From the images posted, I really don't see what there is to get excited about. All the images are grainy and aren't anywhere near as good as what VrayforSketchUp (even in its frustratingly buggy first release) can produce.
-
@unknownuser said:
by DzineTech on Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:59 am
From the images posted, I really don't see what there is to get excited about. All the images are grainy and aren't anywhere near as good as what VrayforSketchUp (even in its frustratingly buggy first release) can produce.
You may be right, but remember...It's FREE!
-
@dzinetech said:
From the images posted, I really don't see what there is to get excited about. All the images are grainy and aren't anywhere near as good as what VrayforSketchUp (even in its frustratingly buggy first release) can produce.
Read what's under the pictures, please.
-
@unknownuser said:
Read what's under the pictures, please.
Your point being? Of course I've read the annotation below the images. What counts is the quality of the final image produced before post-processing and in my opinion its not that impressive based on the examples provided. Yes the KT team do an admirable job working on a program that is free for all to use yet I personally dont think that it should be used as an arguement for the image quality it produces.
-
I would expect any render engine's to have the capability to reduce or removed completely any noise/grain by amending settings /changing presets hence why I'm surprised that the images showcasing the next edition are so noisy. I may be the only one not impressed by what I see but I'm willing to be truthful in what I see rather than be a SketchUp community 'yes man'.
With all due respect to yourself Kim and JJ, there is a huge amount of noise on the first 2 images, far less on JJ's last image. I'm surprised you can't see it but perhaps seeing that you are exposed to KT on a daily basis and immersed within the KT team and community as a whole, you are familiar with this output. I dont believe there is any merit in myself slagging off anyone's work even via comparrison to what I would deem acceptable but I will say that if we agree these images fall into the category of photo-realism, then for any image to become acceptable I would elimate as much noise as possible.
-
@dzinetech said:
@unknownuser said:
Read what's under the pictures, please.
Your point being? Of course I've read the annotation below the images. What counts is the quality of the final image produced before post-processing and in my opinion its not that impressive based on the examples provided. Yes the KT team do an admirable job working on a program that is free for all to use yet I personally dont think that it should be used as an arguement for the image quality it produces.
Let me walk you through it. "Rendered in MLT(BPT) mode for 5 hours... (single core machine)"
Unbiased render method. Thus grainy result after rendering on a single core machine for only 5 hrs.
I could go on like this, but sometimes you just gotta with Mies and think: less is more.
-
The problem with such unbiased spectral renders is time it takes for the renderer to run long enough and get the image right and converge on the final correct solution and that isn't an option for many people with deadlines..
-
What are you trying to point out here? That KT can't produce decent images? Or that KT can produce decent images, though it might take some time?
-
@dzinetech said:
yet I personally dont think that it should be used as an arguement for the image quality it produces.
I fully agree with you...!
The point is that you can get renders completely free of the grains... It's all a matter of the render preset that have been used and how long time you let it "cook"...The "teaser" I made was stopped after 15 mins... If i had let it cook for i.e. 30 minutes, you would not be able to see any grains...
When I get home, I will post some new images...
BTW... I don't see much grain in JJ's images... My clients would be very pleased with this quality, but perhaps your clients wouldn't..??
-
I'm not claiming either. If you read my original post I'm saying that the examples shown don't do anything to impress me. What is the point in showing a half cooked image? Would you give that to a client and expect he/she to be all impressed by it. I'd imagine most client have never heard of MLT nor care either. What they care about is the final image they get from you, not how you get it. My comments on this thread are based on images posted here - not the overall capabilities of the software. I'll happily look at examples of KT that Frederik has offered to see how impressive this new build actually is.
-
Ah. Now I understand. When you wrote:
“From the images posted, I really don't see what there is to get excited about. All the images are grainy and aren't anywhere near as good as what VrayforSketchUp (...) can produce.”
you actually meant:
“From the images posted, I really don't see what there is to get excited about. All the images are grainy and aren't anywhere near as good as what VrayforSketchUp (...) can produce. Then again, the annotations say these were done on a pretty low-grade machine, using an unbiased render method. So, in fact, it’s quite feasable that if one were to render these on a decent computer for the same amount of time, the result would be quite different. Let me rephrase that: that’s a certaintity. So ... in the end, it might be quite possible that KT can in fact, given you have the time, produce images that are better than Vray’s, as unbiased rendering, in terms of quality, generally is the better solution.”
It seems we agree. Which, of course, is a good thing.
-
Now you are putting words in my mouth. Sure KT "might" be able to produce a superior image using an unbiased render method (maxwell, indigo, MLT etc..) if it was given enough time but what use is that to us when we more often than not have to get images to our clients in a shorter time than we would like. This fire-fighting analogy makes unbiased rendering not an option for most professionals when biased rendering can be made to look like any unbiased render. I'm not sure how many hours it would take for a KT MLT render to get anywhere near the quality of a vray render on the same machine but I doubt its worth the wait.
I saw the following quote on another forum regarding such a topic which made me laugh:
*"This is all pointless really, because with a little cunning, you can easily reproduce Maxwell's superb quality of rendering from within Vray.Simply follow these steps:-
- remove your current cpu from motherboard and replace with a nice i386 running at 33Mhz
- Take out all 4 of your 1Gb memory sticks and replace them with a couple of 4Mb sticks
- Pour some porridge over your harddrive (we dont want it spinning too fast)
- Book your plane tickets to Hawaii, then hit "Render"
- Go on holiday for 2 weeks
- Hey Presto - by the time you get back your teapot will be beautifully rendered.
There is only one problem since Vray will have made a nice 'clean' render. DONT WORRY ! We can fix this. Open up Photoshop, go to Filters, select "Add Noise" (personally I prefer about 12%, Uniform & Monochromatic for best Maxwell effect).
Thats it ! your done. easy.
"* -
"Now you are putting words in my mouth. "
Advertisement