Is working with Maxwell Render like shooting with a Real Cam
-
That's actually part of my point - with the render engines, all that film/sensor size, lens length, aperture nonsense is all fungible. That's why adhering strictly to a 35mm equivalence seems kind of limited to me. The reason I mention conversions to different sensor formats is that if you are, say, trying to match a photo, it will very much depend on that particular camera setup, like for example the shallow dof of your mamiya. It won't work to just use the default 35mm dof equivalence.
-
Sure. For me, I tend to just adjust the iso to what I need it to be. I also adjust the sky and the GI to balance the contrast that I'm looking for. What I'm getting at is that saying something is like a "real" camera is rather misleading, and in many ways limiting if you say a real camera is a 35mm film camera. There are many ways to play with DOF, and it all depends on the look you are going for.
-
You can use any size film in Maxwell, but not in the plugin, since it places first priority on providing a wysiwyg workflow within the context of SketchUp. In other plugins, I have provided tools for visualizing (using an overlay, via OpenGL or whatever is available) the Maxwell film size & location (given lens shift) with respect to the associated view as it is composed in the host application, which is not generally capable of displaying perspective based on arbitrary film sizes. It is on my list to do this here as well, at which point you would see film size parameters show up in the plugin, but it does not exist yet.
-
@unknownuser said:
sure it will.. all you have to do is adjust the aperture.. 35mm with a larger aperture then adjust the brightness of the sky..
But then you're back to being fungible about it being a real world camera...
-
JD - that's impressive the things you are working on bringing over from the studio. That's pretty cool.
-
I'm far from an expert with real/traditional cameras -- but there is nothing I've seen in any other engine that Maxwell does not also have as far as traditional camera analog toolset.
However being that I am not particularly camera-centric in my mindset I don't find this a strength or a weakness, but rather just a tool, to me it could be organized in a very different way (with similar results) and I would not be bothered... because after all Maxwell is not really limited in the same way a film/digital camera is. The UI is really nothing more than a conceit to make the concepts less abstract, and more accessible to people already familiar with cameras (an advantage I did not have).
I will say it would be a bad mistake to judge Maxwell's capabilities based on the stand-alone plugin... that is not what Maxwell is, but rather a subset of what Maxwell can do, and is somewhat limited by SketchUp itself. The full render suite is much more powerful in many ways (as it should be).
The UI in Maxwell Studio to me feels much more camera centric since the entire viewport is set up as if you are looking through a viewfinder. I would not mind seeing a similar interface in SketchUp at some point (for the sake of consistency) but obviously there are other things that are more important.
All that said, the paradigm I am really most interested in is the human eye(s) -- for which a camera is a very poor substitute.
Best,
Jason. -
@bakbek said:
From all the render engines out thete for SketchUP... is it safe to say Maxwell Render resembles the work with a real camera the most...
What do you think?
I think it's safe to say it's a perfect example of camouflaged ad.
-
@rv1974 said:
I think it's safe to say it's a perfect example of camouflaged ad.
It's foolish sentiment like yours that caused me alot of trouble here recently, which I am not eager to repeat or see happen to anybody else -- how about researching the facts before jerking the knee in overreaction?
Best,
Jason. -
It was a rather leading question from the 'Bek though...
-eh, no need to bug jason any more...
-
@andybot said:
That's actually part of my point - with the render engines, all that film/sensor size, lens length, aperture nonsense is all fungible. That's why adhering strictly to a 35mm equivalence seems kind of limited to me. The reason I mention conversions to different sensor formats is that if you are, say, trying to match a photo, it will very much depend on that particular camera setup, like for example the shallow dof of your mamiya. It won't work to just use the default 35mm dof equivalence.
I think you hit the mark here... and part of the main reason for me bringing this topic up.
Forget about us archviz artist using Maxwell Render and try to force it into real camera envelope of operation... we rarely do so, and try to "fake" it into our needs. Think of a real photographer getting into CGI in order to expand his offering and do more advanced things in his photography work. He will need a tool that talks the talk he is used too and that is all about real camera settings... sensor size, lenses, ISO, shutter speeds, aperture, shifts and more.
Not referring strictly to the SketchUP plugin here... but in general.
All the render engines since Maxwell Render was first introduced added some physical based / real camera workflow to their features - so there is something to it, a demand by us - the users. I actually use VRay most of the time... but with it's VRayPhysicalCamera and environmental HDRI's. I've also been testing Indigo, Thea and more for there "Camera Like" feature set and I really wanted to know what artists on this forum think about this.
I'm an archviz artist first, not a photographer, but I do tend to go with physically based workflow, trying to work as a photographer does. This usually gets you the most photo-real results. I don't think it is a rule you should blindly follow, but people have been accustomed to judge designs by looking at photos! the real human eye view is, oddly, not the view we judge things according to.
This is why we call it photo-real
Advertisement