Hi Guys:
I've been mulling over the pros & cons of using vdb vs cvex vol procedural for rendering a field of thin mist in mantra pbr. Although sparse volumes are very fast to generate, I wonder if a cvex/vol procedural setup would yield better detail, since the noise is sampled at rendertime and is only limited by step size. Also, does anyone know if rendertimes are faster with a procedural?
Thanks in advance!
Cvex Volume Procedural vs OpenVDB Rendering
7836 6 2- fxrod
- Member
- 133 posts
- Joined: July 2005
- Offline
- luoqiulin
- Member
- 304 posts
- Joined: May 2007
- Offline
- xiaolin liu
- Member
- 19 posts
- Joined: June 2013
- Offline
fxrod
Hi Guys:
I've been mulling over the pros & cons of using vdb vs cvex vol procedural for rendering a field of thin mist in mantra pbr. Although sparse volumes are very fast to generate, I wonder if a cvex/vol procedural setup would yield better detail, since the noise is sampled at rendertime and is only limited by step size. Also, does anyone know if rendertimes are faster with a procedural?
Thanks in advance!
In your case
VDB = cached volume procedural.
in general VDB = calc once,vex volume proc = calc every frame,so vdb must faster than vex a lot?
These two use both octree accelerating structure.
Vex volume procedural's parm “Octree” need about 256 in my experience,a 2k pic can takes only 1min(Vex v proc) in my experience.
But VDB slower than vex v proc in the same detail. i think maybe that is bcz the contents you rendered are not continuous. :roll:
- fxrod
- Member
- 133 posts
- Joined: July 2005
- Offline
Hi Xiaolin:
I intend on there being some time-dependent noise in my volume, so the volume would have to be calculated per frame either way. As far as detail, I would have to regenerate the vdb if I wanted to add more voxel detail, vs cvex, where I can simply use a more refined volume step size to capture the noise detail.
Still, aesthetically, that amount of detail may be negligible and I'd get better bang for my buck with the speedier solution, which ever that turns out to be.
Also, vdb does not use an octree structure. :wink:
I intend on there being some time-dependent noise in my volume, so the volume would have to be calculated per frame either way. As far as detail, I would have to regenerate the vdb if I wanted to add more voxel detail, vs cvex, where I can simply use a more refined volume step size to capture the noise detail.
Still, aesthetically, that amount of detail may be negligible and I'd get better bang for my buck with the speedier solution, which ever that turns out to be.
Also, vdb does not use an octree structure. :wink:
Francisco Rodriguez
Effects Animator | Walt Disney Animation Studios
Effects Animator | Walt Disney Animation Studios
- tjeeds
- Member
- 339 posts
- Joined: Aug. 2007
- Offline
Hey Frankie,
I think the best of both worlds is to use the same code in a Volume VOP and the surface shader. The SOP generated volume can be low res and it will act as a cacheable shading bound for your shader detail. Small changes in noise shouldn't require you to regenerate the cache either. It's not as elegant as using one or the other but I think it is the most efficient.
I think the best of both worlds is to use the same code in a Volume VOP and the surface shader. The SOP generated volume can be low res and it will act as a cacheable shading bound for your shader detail. Small changes in noise shouldn't require you to regenerate the cache either. It's not as elegant as using one or the other but I think it is the most efficient.
Jesse Erickson
Fx Animator
WDAS
Fx Animator
WDAS
- xiaolin liu
- Member
- 19 posts
- Joined: June 2013
- Offline
- tamte
- Member
- 8753 posts
- Joined: July 2007
- Offline
-
- Quick Links