Photo realisitic 3Ds in CA

[CBuserIndia]

I have been struggling to get photo realistic 3d images through rendering. Most of my client complain about realistic looks of the images.

When compared to 3d rendered images of several other software, CA's rendered images look very un-real.

 

Below are some of the images chief team have displayed in CA website gallery :

https://cloud.chiefarchitect.com/1/samples/interiors/timber-frame-office.jpg

https://cloud.chiefarchitect.com/1/samples/interiors/mod-living-room.jpg

https://cloud.chiefarchitect.com/1/samples/interiors/mod-eclectic.jpg

These images do not look photo realistic.

 

Can you please help me understand if this is best I can achieve in CA. Because I am really struggling to answer my clients repeatedly.

 

All designers in my team use CA Interior. We design several homes every month. At-least half of the clients come back - complaining  - that 3D/photos dont look good. It is affecting business.

We are working very hard & may be we have missed few expert settings here & there, but even when I look at images shown in CA gallery - These are NO WAY photo real.

Please reply.

Thanks

[Chiefer]

https://cloud.chiefarchitect.com/1/samples/interiors/mod-living-room.jpg

 

I created that scene in 2012 or 13 in X5 to compare rendering engine at that time.

 

Rendering below was my X5 version of the said scene.

Post a plan, we will render it and send our settings back to you.

[TheKitchenAbode]

You can certainly produce significantly better Ray Traces than the CA gallery samples. Over the last couple of months we have been having a number of highly informative discussions concerning this. Check out the threads on "Let's Ray Trace", "Ray Trace/Post Processing Tips" and Render Issues with Lights" for some great examples and tips.

 

 

[Renerabbitt]

Or you could hire someone who does renders...Jintu, Graham, and myself all perform such a service.

[CBuserIndia]

Hello, I am attaching Plan & two material files used in making of this room. Please let me know what best Settings can be done in same.

Thanks for all help

 

Parents-Bedroom.plan

[Chiefer]

Is this an x9 plan?

[CBuserIndia]

hello Chiefer

Yes this was made using CA x9 interior version.

Thanks

[Chiefer]

Ok.

 

I'm Jintu, may we know yours?

[CBuserIndia]

Hello Jintu

My name is Krunal. I run an Interior design studio in Mumbai, India.

Thank you for all help

[Chiefer]

Hi Krunal,

 

Here are the settings.

 

z jintusettings.zip

[CBuserIndia]

Hello Jintu

Thank you for all help.

 

I used the plan created by you & attached is rendered image result.

This is good, (please don't get me wrong) but it - still misses photo-realisitic feel to great extent.

 

Let me also send you few images we have rendered using CA. They are no way photo-realistic, but we have tried lot of things.

 

There are several other software that create Photo realistic renders. I am not sure about how far setting corrections inside Chief Architect will deliver.

 

I am sorry to sound negative, but I am really in a big confusion, my whole team uses CA Interior & client's complains about photo-realistic quality is killing whole show at my end.

 

I tried using couple of accessories like simple table, flower vase, cup, mirror, chair inside an empty room, render it, and no way it looks realistic.

 

I wrote same query to SSA support, but they have not come back with any response.

1.bmp

3.bmp

4.bmp

[Chiefer]

Play with the settings more, You might hit the jackpot. :-)

 

Here are some of our Chief renderings -

 

[CBuserIndia]

Hello Jintu

 

Your work is very impressive, but with lot of humility, I am still not sure if using CA one can achieve photo realistic effect.

I have asked Chief Team to share example of their best photo-realistic render of Kitchen/bedroom image.

 

I am referring few links below, just to make point further clear by what I mean by photo realistic images.

 

 

http://www.luxrender.net/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=9076&g2_serialNumber=2

 

http://www.luxrender.net/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=7787&g2_serialNumber=2

 

http://www.luxrender.net/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=16544&g2_serialNumber=2

 

 

Thanks

[Chiefer]

You have to buy Vray, Corona or Thea ..or Luxrender if you want the same photo-realism

[Renerabbitt]

Yes that's not what chief is intended to do, I shot your scene through Thea Render, with no post processing, took a little over an hour to do. You also need to use better models... bed you used is a very low poly count, as well as the curtains, and the fan isn't material mapped appropriately, neither is the bed frame. If you wanted it to be photorealistic it would probably take an additional 10 hours for a seasoned designer.

Final

Obj ID

Mat ID

 

 

[TheKitchenAbode]

Unfortunately, if you want to stay with Ray Trace you will have to be willing to accept it's inherent limitations. It can produce better quality output than that demonstrated in the CA galleries but it does not have the level of control and sophistication of a dedicated renderer. As Rene mentions, the model quality and materials are an extremely important aspect in generating a convincing realistic scene and the models in CA are just not at that level.

 

The challenge in determining whether or not to continue with Ray Trace or move to another program is in evaluating the needs of your clientele, the time/effort you can afford to dedicate to this and what you can afford to spend. Is your business to provide publication grade renderings or do you just need decent renderings so clients can reasonably visualize their project. If it is the former then you will need to move on, if the latter then with a bit more effort Ray Trace may suffice.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Here is an example of a current CA gallery Ray Trace as per CAs' settings and the same scene with some lighting and material adjustments.

 

CA Gallery Default

 

Adjusted Version

 

I believe this is a reasonable representation as to what the Ray Trace engine can deliver without getting into some really over the top lighting techniques. Just a note, the adjusted version has some minor sharpening and color saturation adjustments made to it in a simple photo editor.

[TheKitchenAbode]

Something to consider in all of this is how you define photo realism. This is somewhat subjective and varies according to ones own personal interpretation of this. For myself, I place a greater emphasis on how something would actually look as it is being viewed by the eye under normal/real lighting conditions. As I have to actually deliver the look that I represent to the client I need to be careful not to over do it, the finished project always needs to be equal to or better than what the clients expectations would be based upon the renderings. I fully appreciate renderings depicting that striking ray of light piercing the room, the overexposed window or that overall soft glow, but to be honest I don't recall ever really seeing this in any of my clients homes.

 

Can CA Ray Trace deliver photo realism? I think it can do a pretty good job, but then it all depends upon how you define photo realism.

[Chiefer]

On 8/25/2017 at 2:25 PM, Renerabbitt said:

Yes that's not what chief is intended to do, I shot your scene through Thea Render, with no post processing, took a little over an hour to do. You also need to use better models... bed you used is a very low poly count, as well as the curtains, and the fan isn't material mapped appropriately, neither is the bed frame. If you wanted it to be photorealistic it would probably take an additional 10 hours for a seasoned designer.

Final

Obj ID

Mat ID

 

 

Thea, truly, is unbiased. Great rendering!

 

.

[Renerabbitt]

18 hours ago, Chiefer said:

Thea, truly, is unbiased. Great rendering!

 

.

Thank you and cheers!

[TheKitchenAbode]

Rene - Just interested in your opinion as to the weight you give to the fact that this was run unbiased versus the impact that using much better 3D models and better defined materials had on the quality of the output. I have done some investigation concerning the pro's and con's of biased versus unbiased computational methods and though it appears that the unbiased approach can ultimately deliver greater photo realism it seems to be less definitive when renderings are not run for considerable lengths of time.

[Renerabbitt]

4 hours ago, TheKitchenAbode said:

Rene - Just interested in your opinion as to the weight you give to the fact that this was run unbiased versus the impact that using much better 3D models and better defined materials had on the quality of the output. I have done some investigation concerning the pro's and con's of biased versus unbiased computational methods and though it appears that the unbiased approach can ultimately deliver greater photo realism it seems to be less definitive when renderings are not run for considerable lengths of time.

It actually was run using Thea's biased Presto AO engine, which is screaming fast because is uses both the GPU and CPU and any node computers you have as well. For most of the types of renders we do, it is the best option. I believe rendering went for 16 minutes on this scene. As you delve further into it all, you figure out the tricks to speed up the render times. Windows are duplicated and turned into invisible light sources, you can re-light or repaint a scene after the rendering is finished as it runs individual calcs for each light iteration independently of the rendering. The list is very long.

..and yes items like the bed and comforter I would import from an outside source, using chief as a placemarker. If you ever have any interest in seeing me work a scene we can do a screen sharing so you can check it out. Just let me know

[Richard_Morrison]

I would say that photorealistic quality means that you can't tell if you are looking at a photograph or a computer rendering. As adequate as Chief Architect's rendering capabilities are, I have yet to see to see a Chief rendering where I was scratching my head trying to figure out if it is a photograph or a computer model. Some in this gallery would qualify, though. https://artlantis.com/gallery/  

 

Interestingly, Artlantis used to be commonly used by Chief Architect users, but haven't seen it brought up in years. 

[Chiefer]

1 hour ago, Richard_Morrison said:

I would say that photorealistic quality means that you can't tell if you are looking at a photograph or a computer rendering. As adequate as Chief Architect's rendering capabilities are, I have yet to see to see a Chief rendering where I was scratching my head trying to figure out if it is a photograph or a computer model. Some in this gallery would qualify, though. https://artlantis.com/gallery/  

 

Interestingly, Artlantis used to be commonly used by Chief Architect users, but haven't seen it brought up in years. 

 

For one, Chief has to improve the material properties like enabling Gloss in order to be photo-realistic, If they can add Gloss in Render View as well as in ray trace mode I will never ask for anything else again. Take note that Lumion does not ray trace at all yet look at their renderings. Their secret is in the material editor and GI. On top of that, one can have a very good rendering in just 12 seconds.

[Renerabbitt]

22 hours ago, Richard_Morrison said:

I would say that photorealistic quality means that you can't tell if you are looking at a photograph or a computer rendering. As adequate as Chief Architect's rendering capabilities are, I have yet to see to see a Chief rendering where I was scratching my head trying to figure out if it is a photograph or a computer model. Some in this gallery would qualify, though. https://artlantis.com/gallery/  

 

Interestingly, Artlantis used to be commonly used by Chief Architect users, but haven't seen it brought up in years. 

I spent about a year with artlantis but the workflow was very inefficient IMHO