Posts by Thomas Willberger

    The feature set between our CAD integrations is slightly different at this point of time. We strive for feature parity in the near future, except for some features (like the 2.7 BIM Informations, which do not make sense for a tool like SketchUp. But it will be integrated for ArchiCAD and Revit).

    Tessellation can yield better results, but it is quite computationally expensive. Parallax occlusion mapping (when done right) can look every bit as good and not have nearly as high overheads.

    We may add parallax occlusion mapping at some point of time. The problem with tessellation is that it's hard to author. If your mesh triangularization (or normals) is slightly broken, it will result in crazy shape artifacts.

    I believe its been mentioned before but if Enscape could implement something similar to Lumions Real Skies that would be a pretty big game changer.

    There's nothing to implement. They just ship a few free skies with their software. You can also obtain them for free here https://hdri-skies.com/ and load them into Enscape easily. Maybe we will ship some of them one day, too.


    andybot It's currently not possible to get the 2.6 clouds in 2.7. We regard it as a visual improvement but sure, weather conditions are diverse and everyone perceives beauty differently.

    One thing - I wish that we could get back lights to do this in renders...

      

    I think you can achieve this to some extent with emissive surfaces?


    Btw your FOV seems to be too large. The default Enscape FOV is chosen for the best walk through experience, but I suggest choosing a more narrow one for images.

    Enscape is not capable of producing photorealistic detailed shadows for small details such as reveals. AO controls ( or a separate AO pass ) would help us overcome this when attempting to create high quality still images.

    This is a known shortcoming and we are working on that. Fixing or workarounding these issues be implementing an AO slider would be the wrong direction.

    I work as an interiorarchitect and had the same issue in discussions with a client. For example if you see or buy a color you like chances are it will look quite different in shop versus when painted on your wall back home due to lighting conditions, bleeding or reflections from nearby planes (floor, roof, walls) or outside windows (i. e green trees, grass or nabour house wall) daylight or time of day, season of year. Also temperature of light or nearby color can manipulate the outcome. You can enhance or "kill" a color by using an "opposite" color or spesific lighting like used to make fruit and vegetables look more tempting in the supermarked. This is why trying to match a color in rendering with a chart is both hard and not natural.

    It becomes easy if you fix the hue/saturation in post production aka white balance. This is I think the only reasonable way to fix it. Dont change the content.

    "currently" ... does this imply a future feature? (+1 if so)

    We had this implemented once, but removed it. An automatic white balance in Enscape is only more confusing in this regard because you don't know exactly what's going on under the hood ("Enscape changes my colors automatically, what is going on?" ;) )

    One thing that causes this perceptual mismatch is white balance. Enscape currently does not do an automatic white balance. However, cameras do, and your eyes do it too, which makes you remember things less tinted as your brain automatically whitebalanced everything. It may help to use Enscape's color temperature adjustment or do in as a manual post step in PS.

    And I still think that having a numerical distance rather than a percentage would be an improvement.

    This is already the case. The amount (Circle of confusion scale) is in percentage, the distance is in meters once you enable manual focus.

    The "drop-off" between sharp and blurred follows the same 'curve' as the DOF amount:

    - The more you have in focus, the slower the drop-off to blurred.

    - The less you have in focus, the quicker the drop-off to blurred.


    What I (we?) would like to be able to have is a 'near' and 'far' DOF (with a measurable "distance from camera" setting): everything between these is sharp and the drop-off follows the same "amount" curve as we have just now.

    As I said, I understood what you want - this is currently not implemented in Enscape. I just tried to explain the current implementation and the posted equation.

    I just said that the DOF parameter should define an interval between two planes,

    That's the DOF amount in Enscape right now. The planes are symmetric around the focal plane.

    The positioning of the center between the two planes should be either defined by the user

    That's the manual focus, which is indicated as a white range at the focal center.

    ...Herbo: that's EXACTLY how a camera works! That is why it's unsettling to have a different behaviour for the rendering!

    Attached abstract from "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Stroebel.

    I understand your request, we will discuss that. But your interpretation of the equations is wrong. Just because there are two planes of equal CoC (circle of confusion) in front and behind the focal plane does not mean that they are independent from each other. In fact, they are not. The camera parameters boil down to one degree of freedom that controls the CoC w.r.t the focal plane.


    But anyway, I understand the request. Sometimes it might be useful to bend the laws of physics for artistic freedom. We will discuss that.

    Great that you found a solution. One thing to consider is the white balance / color temperature of the image. This also causes a slight color distortion (also in photography). There are a few settings exposed on that matter.