I found that bringing the min sampling up actually took longer where as
having a max of 3 added detail as needed, which was necessary since it
was an HD spot. I haven't used the rasterizer for fur but I'll give it
a try in 6.
Kim Aldis wrote:
I'm surprised you use those settings but not surprised that you have to
filter it quite heavily. You should take the max sampling down - you should
only need that in extreme circumstances - and bring the min sampling up. 2,1
should be more than adequate.
5.11 I had very fast results using the rasterizer, much faster and much
better quality than ray tracing but I understand that may not be the case in
6. Generally, though, the raterizer really likes fine detail.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On
Behalf Of Nguyen Tran
Sent: 04 May 2007 16:18
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: hair appearance; 5.xx and 6.xx
In general, we've found that MR in v6 renders a little softer with
Gauss
3. For a fur scene using xsi's hair shader, i had to use mitchell 4,
Aliasing Min 0, Max 3, and sampling contrast 0.04 to keep the nice
details.
Nguyen.
Marc-Andre Carbonneau wrote:
If Daniel (Rind) is still reading this list, perhaps you could have a
quick look? (if you have the time)
I've increased the size of the hair and also decreased the
transparency a little. Seems better but not quite what I was getting
in 5.11.
I'll fiddle some more see what I can come up with.
Thanks
MAC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*From:* owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] *On
Behalf Of *Kris Rivel
*Sent:* May 1, 2007 5:13 PM
*To:* XSI(at)Softimage.COM
*Subject:* Re: hair appearance; 5.xx and 6.xx
MR is a bit different in v6 vs. v5. Some of Holger's shaders in his
shader collection had to be adjusted to compensate. Maybe the muhair
shader needs some updating as well.
Kris
Marc-Andre Carbonneau wrote:
Argh! We had to switch from 5.11 to 6.01 and I now have the same
issue!
My hair were just fine in 5.11 and now looks fluffy and more
transparent!
What I don't understand is that I use muhair so does it mean Mental
Ray
does something different?!
MAC
Date : Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:02:52 +0100
To : <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>From : "Kim Aldis" <XSI(at)kim-aldis.co.uk>
Subject : RE: hair appearance; 5.xx and 6.xx
You're right, it's way different. I can see how it might look better
for
hair but for bird feathering it's lost that softness that works so
well.
Looks awful. Oh well.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at <mailto:owner-
xsi%28at>)Softimage.COM]
On
Behalf Of Francois Lord
Sent: 25 April 2007 15:56
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: hair appearance; 5.xx and 6.xx
Yes, there is a difference.
When taking our Bell Beavers inside 6.01, we noticed they looked
better
and they took less time to render. Also, rasterizer doesn't seem to
be
a very good alternative anymore. I haven't done many tests.
Kim Aldis wrote:
Has anyone noticed differences in the rendering of hair between 5
and
6? I'm
seeing a huge difference in a scene from a while back and I'm
trying
to work
out if it's the scene or mental ray/xsi.
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
Nguyen Tran
Technical Director
TOPIX
35 McCaul St., Suite 200, Toronto, ON, M5T 1V7
t 416.971.7711 f 416.971.9277
www.topixfx.com
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
