Hey everybody! After a few years of struggling I finally decided to accept defeat and ask
when you tumble with the camera in the viewport, houdini always picks the objects beneath the cursor as local pivot. Please tell me there is a way to disable that and set it like in maya/softimage.
what i mean:
when i space+f or space+g an object, the pivot is set to that as expected. but when i now press ALT and tumble around, the cursor position still matters and possibly picks another object (which is beneath the cursor at this moment) and tumbles around that.
is there a way to disable this cursor-pos-set-pivot nonsense? when i press space+f/g i would like to tumble around this object no matter where my cursor is atm.
is this possible?
thanks!
Found 12 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Houdini Indie and Apprentice » tumble/orient camera
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
Wren
Like with a lot of cg, the principles are out there for everyone floating in math/cg papers. It's really the application of them and specifically workflow created that people come up with that has value.
Ie Look at 3Delight's easy breasy creation and management of AOV's.
ps. We have been using the new 3Delight in production and it pretty awesome. FYI
i'm testing it for the last two weeks in Houdini, and I love it, too! limited but awesome experience so far.
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
BabaJagain a poor comparison. a digital signal gets translated into an analog waveform. would you say a standard image looks different when opened in photoshop, imageviewer or another painter?
I think your missing the point of what others are trying to convey to you because even digital signals translated to other digital signals, let alone analog output does change.
Same *.mp4 or *.avi files look different whether viewed in my Switch, VLC, Win Media Player or Itunes.
And don't say, yeah well maybe it's just different codecs being employed and different default resolutions.
Because that's the point - just because all renderers may be using the same underlying math, that doesn't mean they are all using the same written code to convert that math into into something that can be utilized.
Same math does not mean same code - nor does it mean same end results.
In this case the math is analogue, the code is digital. At some point (as one example), decisions have to be made on how and where to handle potentional floating point erros; when writting the code for those math rendering principles you are referring too. It's not all going to be done in the same way, nor get the same results.
jesus, i'm simply not accepting the point that one modern pathtracer renders “real” or “awesome” as one user put it, and another with a very similar feature set renders bad or “plastic” as someone else phrased it. that's it, I hope i made my point clear. There are several studios I worked for which switched from Arnold (with existing 20-40 licenses) to Redshift, or added RS to their arsenal (doing commercials I might add), who would all be stupid because now it's suddenly all looking bad.
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
Midphasestephan6
the simple problem with your comparison is, we are not talking about sensors and lenses capturing light (analog), we are simply talking about math. renderers work linearly, use the same rendering base algorithm (http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs348b-10/lectures/path/path.pdf), use mostly the same shading models (GGX), use the same pixel filters (gaussian for example) and use the same light falloffs (squared).
Well that's a romantic thought.
The truth is that the result does differ, which is why final renders from Arnold, Mantra, Vray and other unbiased renders look different even with as similar of a pipeline as possible.
Want to see just how much 0's and 1's can differ? Get a .wav file, play it from Pro Tools, play it from Logic Pro, Play it from Cubase, play it in Nuendo, play it in Quicktime Player, play it in VLC, play it in iTunes and hear the difference for yourself. Same data, different audible results. If you're bored during the quarantine, you can spend hours reading various people arguing about the differences (perceptual or otherwise) on many threads at https://www.gearslutz.com [www.gearslutz.com]
again a poor comparison. a digital signal gets translated into an analog waveform. would you say a standard image looks different when opened in photoshop, imageviewer or another painter?
/edit: just to get this to a close, this back and forth won't lead to any conclusion. you can choose your renderer by the “look” it produces, all the power to you if this works for you. i'll continue to choose the most fitting renderer for the task based on project demands. we simply have to agree to disagree here.
best, –s
Edited by stephan6 - March 21, 2020 13:38:48
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
goat
@stephen6 so I'm curious then, your premise is that the final output is all that counts. Do you define Houdini and Maya the same thing? As all they do is manipulate 3d meshes.
You appear to ignore the toolsets and process, and, only look at outcomes.
please don't strawman me. you claimed everything out of Redshift looks like plastic / looks bad. I begged to differ. this was this discussion all about. would you claim everything created in Maya looks bad and everything out of Houdini looks great? the process is, as you might know quite different “?” But again, this thinking doesn't even apply here because renderers are way more similar than Maya compared to Houdini these days. That's my hole point.
and yes, output is all that counts. nobody in the real world (clients, directors) cares about the process in case you didn't notice.
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
goat
@stephan6 thank you for rejoining the discussion. Unfortunately, it feels like you are are going down the same path as @Daryl.
and what exactly do you mean by that?
Actually I consider myself a vocal critic of RS on the RS forums, I do not agree with a lot of issues there, so I'm by far no RS evangelist, in case you meant that. I still use Arnold on a (almost) daily basis since its beta days, and have actually used many renderers in productions during my career. (PRMan, Air, MR, even Entropy to name some old farts here)
I'm just a strong believer that, what you guys call realism, is mostly achieved in compositing…. even today. you can single out bad CG all day long rendered with various renderers, including Arnold and Renderman. This doesn't make on more “plastic looking” than another.
goat
A renderer is far more than the kernel of MCPT, it is the sum of all its parts, as you have pointed out.
As an analogy, you have been saying that running an Intel processor renders the platform of choice the same, because, the heart of the system is the same. MacOS, linux and Windows users would like to have a word with you.
well, would you say an email written on windows isn't send like on linux? or a copied file is somewhat different? or a frame is rendered differently? look i think this analogy doesn't work at all from the beginning to make your point, just saying that even in your example the end result is the same, the time and how you get there is certainly different.
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
MidphaseintoArt
I also don't understand all the hype about render engines. Compared to your statement above 3delight doesn't use the same algorithms than Arnold / Redshift and does something amazingly better ? and Renderman is not good enough in your opinion ? Thats a bit arbitrary. Arnold and Renderman are amazing and both get gpu or even better xpu support in the future.
FWIW:
To me render engines are just like video cameras. The sensors are all based for the most part on the same technology, yet they yield vastly different results (when I'm not working on my personal Houdini projects, I do color grading for clients). For instance, the way an ARRI Alexa shot project looks and “feels” vs. one that was shot on a Sony FS7 is night and day. In addition, when operating a camera, the way the menus are laid out, what knobs and buttons and placed where, etc. makes a huge difference for the DP's and operators.
Render engines also each have a look and feel to the images that they produce, and the equivalent of the menus/knobs and buttons are the type of nodes that they offer and how they are wired between each other. In addition to the above, there is also a time-to-render factor, which for small one-person-armies can be a huge consideration.
I think this is exactly why the hype about render engines.
well, that's a romantic thought
the simple problem with your comparison is, we are not talking about sensors and lenses capturing light (analog), we are simply talking about math. renderers work linearly, use the same rendering base algorithm (http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs348b-10/lectures/path/path.pdf), use mostly the same shading models (GGX), use the same pixel filters (gaussian for example) and use the same light falloffs (squared).
the big differences are feature sets, speed, efficiency and data handling (memory footprint). this is even true for bidirectional pathtracers.
look differences are mainly because of different shader feature sets, sometimes (but rarely today) texture handling(mipmaps), internal clampings, thresholds, applied LUTs or postFX (that's why octane renderings look nice from the beginning), but if you create a simple scene with the same object, the same light with the same intensity/size and same basic lightshader, the same basic surface shader with the same shading model, you'll get exactly the same result. (with an MC, rgb based pathtracer)
but of course renderers support different shaders with varying options, different light shader properties, and sometimes use different shortcuts to reduce the time to finish a frame. But i don't accept the premise of being “misleading” for comparing Arnold and Redshift.
a bit dated but still a good read
https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/the-state-of-rendering/ [www.fxguide.com]
Technical Discussion » i got some renderman issue on houdini 18.391
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
Aleksandre
Error: Indie does not support generating disk files.
do you have RIB export enabled? (which isn't supported with H Indie)
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
lol, you guys should read about montecarlo based pathtracers….. but i should have known better to argue with experts on a forum. i'm outa here
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
intoArtstephan6
First of all, Arnold felt like a revelation back then coming from MentalRay (even on old CPUs were it was veeeery slow). Redshift had pretty much the same effect when it surfaced, I was finally able to get a shot rendered on a single day. (yay )
Both use pretty much the same algorithm and shortcuts, so i doubt that you'll see a big quality difference there.
Sorry for being a bit harsh, but your introduction sounds like Redshift and Arnold produce similar results and Redshift is just faster which is pretty much misleading.stephan6
I'm having a hard look at 3delight at the moment.. and it's a neat experience so far…. there are still a lot of features missing (it's in its early days), but the speed is almost on RS level, and the plugin (even in beta) is rocksolid compared to Renderman. (not bidirectional though)
I also don't understand all the hype about render engines. Compared to your statement above 3delight doesn't use the same algorithms than Arnold / Redshift and does something amazingly better ? and Renderman is not good enough in your opinion ? Thats a bit arbitrary. Arnold and Renderman are amazing and both get gpu or even better xpu support in the future.
misleading? so tell me, what's the difference between both pathtracers? (keep in mind, when RS was released Arnold didn't have randomwalk SSS, or the volume support it has now, which is the main feature difference atm.)
and yes Renderman 22.6 and 23.2 are buggy as hell in Houdini on Windows. I worked with it for around 4 months and had more crashes than in my 25 years combined. It was one of the most frustrating experiences ever, so I wouldn't call my opinion arbitrary. anyway, use whatever works for you.
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
Daryl Dunlap
RS, by default MipMaps textures, and uses a texture size based on pixel coverage to save VRAM space, but you have full control over how aggressive the MipMapping behaves. So, for Hero shots, you can fully disable MipMapping to achieve better texture detail, for example, BumpMapping.
i'm very aware of the mipmap bias setting, but this doesn't solve the issues i have with RS bump mapping. especially with procedurals
–s
Houdini Lounge » arnold or redshift? h18
- stephan6
- 12 posts
- Offline
ok, i think i have to chip in here i've used Arnold in production since 2009 and Redshift pretty much since v1.0. Both in Softimage. First of all, Arnold felt like a revelation back then coming from MentalRay (even on old CPUs were it was veeeery slow). Redshift had pretty much the same effect when it surfaced, I was finally able to get a shot rendered on a single day. (yay )
Both use pretty much the same algorithm and shortcuts, so i doubt that you'll see a big quality difference there. One thing i noticed, is that RS renders bumpmaps differently (worse), especially procedural textures. Arnolds bumps are sharper, less oversampled, but still nicely antialiased. in RS you have to drive the reflection roughness instead to get a similar look, so it's doable. But you'll have to optimize more, the days of simply adding a Arnold property with 5 additional subdivs for displacement are over
there are a lot of excellent RS projects out there, just check out panoply's work. (https://www.panoply.co.uk)
if you see a difference in this fence/sparks scene, it's probably just because RS clamps secondary rays (which is optional), to avoid fireflies and overcast pixels. I didn't find a similar setting in Mantra, and had therefor pretty badly sampled renderings with it. (but i'm not very experienced in Mantra) (and lets not talk about the speed, especially with transparencies)
Either way, I try to get back to CPU, but mostly because i want to use bidirectional pathtracing, and i'm sick of the way windows behaves while rendering on GPU (especially when it goes out of core, my system is barely useable - so i can't really render in the background… which isn't the case with CPU renderers). The speed improvement of RS also diminishes when it's getting very complex, and the scene extraction times of RS aren't that good either to tell you the truth.
I'm having a hard look at 3delight at the moment.. and it's a neat experience so far…. there are still a lot of features missing (it's in its early days), but the speed is almost on RS level, and the plugin (even in beta) is rocksolid compared to Renderman. (not bidirectional though)
just my 0.02$
–Stephan Haidacher
Both use pretty much the same algorithm and shortcuts, so i doubt that you'll see a big quality difference there. One thing i noticed, is that RS renders bumpmaps differently (worse), especially procedural textures. Arnolds bumps are sharper, less oversampled, but still nicely antialiased. in RS you have to drive the reflection roughness instead to get a similar look, so it's doable. But you'll have to optimize more, the days of simply adding a Arnold property with 5 additional subdivs for displacement are over
there are a lot of excellent RS projects out there, just check out panoply's work. (https://www.panoply.co.uk)
if you see a difference in this fence/sparks scene, it's probably just because RS clamps secondary rays (which is optional), to avoid fireflies and overcast pixels. I didn't find a similar setting in Mantra, and had therefor pretty badly sampled renderings with it. (but i'm not very experienced in Mantra) (and lets not talk about the speed, especially with transparencies)
Either way, I try to get back to CPU, but mostly because i want to use bidirectional pathtracing, and i'm sick of the way windows behaves while rendering on GPU (especially when it goes out of core, my system is barely useable - so i can't really render in the background… which isn't the case with CPU renderers). The speed improvement of RS also diminishes when it's getting very complex, and the scene extraction times of RS aren't that good either to tell you the truth.
I'm having a hard look at 3delight at the moment.. and it's a neat experience so far…. there are still a lot of features missing (it's in its early days), but the speed is almost on RS level, and the plugin (even in beta) is rocksolid compared to Renderman. (not bidirectional though)
just my 0.02$
–Stephan Haidacher
-
- Quick Links