I would be happy with this being a global option if an additional pass is a problem. The checkbox would be ON/OFF for treating material as solid or transparent in Material ID. Many architectural workflows, especially exterior shots, are better if the interior Material IDs are not visible in windows.
Gadget exr is only useful for post so its assumed in this discussion.
I was just trying to see if it were possible to make high(er) bit depth output even more efficient and flexible than it is now.
Thanks for pointing out that I have the option to rerender though
The idea of rendering an HDR is to let you have the raw brightness data, as Clemens has written. Which tools you want to use, and how, to get the desired LDR image from this data is up to you. If you want to have a 100% matching image - simply export usual LDR screenshot instead of EXR. Or know how to master your tools to make it manually, but I don't see any reason why one would want to do it in manually post process when Enscape already does it for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Perhaps I am just dense ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Using other render engines (Vray / Redshift / Thea) I have saved 16-bit output which preserved the same 'look' as the 8bit output but contained additional color information which I found useful in making specific color adjustments in post.
It has proven to be a nice fallback in case there is a last second need to make specific color adjustments to certain portions of a rendering in post. (ie. "change this color to green" or "brighten this area significantly")
Are you saying the Enscape render engine is not capable of saving a higher bit depth image with the same look as the preview we achieve in Enscape?
I think there's some confusion going on what the EXR/high dynamic range export is actually doing. It's not expected to match the output of the standard low dynamic range export options, since it does something different. It stores the "raw" brightness information of your scene without doing a so called "tonemapping" operation, which translates brightness information to low dynamic range colors which you can display on your monitor. If you open an EXR file in Photoshop you have to do some sort of tonemapping first in order to display the image. This usually consists of selecting an exposure and other params like gamma.
If you're not familiar with the procedure I'd recommend to work with low dynamic range image exports instead and let Enscape handle it.
So this is exactly what I was I already understood and was hoping to confirm. Thank you Clemens Musterle ...I can stop asking
I still think there is a wasted opportunity to somehow begin that process in Enscape and seamlessly transition the work done there into photoshop, possibly via exporting an LUT?
Thanks very much for insight into your process. I use this method as well.
I do not find this matches the 8 bit output. Do find that it does?
What I am attempting to do is avoid wasted time making fine tune adjustments in Enscape, and then having to basically throw those out when opening an EXR in photoshop. If you have any insight as to how to streamline this process, I am all ears.
I have tried both. In all cases, I am unable to match 8-bit output from Enscape.
Have you been able to match the 32-bit output with 8-bit output simply by opening in photoshop in a specific way?
If so, please explain how.
For collaborating between host applications, and possibly between versions of the same host application, it could be useful to Export / Import Enscape proprietary data.
This would include library elements, proxies, visual settings, material settings.
The goal would be that if we converted the geometry to another host (ie, Revit to Sketchup, Archicad to Sketchup, etc) we could then import the Enscape data and recreate the same scene efficiently.
This functionality could also be used to save Enscape "Setups" which could then be used across applications. This would be useful in an office that wanted to standardize and uses Sketchup and Revit for example.
Pete Chamberlain ...I have the same issue, and had written about this previously.
I did not receive an advice on how to workaround my issue and understood EXR (32 bit) was simply different animal and this was expected behavior.
When working with EXR's and opening in Photoshop, should we expect to be able to match Enscape's 8bit output?
Were the issues mainly on interior shots, or both interior and exterior?
I will say that IF Enscape allowed for native animation tools in 3dsmax to be utilized, there would be a benefit for some projects. However, currently Enscape does not allow for many tools in Sketchup such as animation, so that is not a guarantee.
Assuming the same UI would drive Enscape within 3dsmax, the results would be similar with similar modeling.
However I will say it is a big misconception that Sketchup is somehow less than 3dsmax. In some ways it is better, and in others not, depends on your needs. Sketchup is WAY better for quick design and visualization of architecture.
Fyi, I own 3dsmax and have been using since DOS / V1. I have not bothered upgrading / migrating settings since 2016 even though I have been on maintenance the whole time. Sketchup wins my vote over and over for the majority of my projects, which are primarily architectural design/visualization.
100% agree that being able to save General Settings to a file is a no brainer. Teams will want to share those settings at the very least.
I also agree that some of the General Settings should actually be per scene. For example grass rendering. It works ok for some scenes but not others.
While we are discussing the saving and importing of settings.... I find showing "Visual Settings Import" under "General Settings" to be a bit odd. We have a menu item for "Load Preset" wouldn't it make more sense to include "Import Legacy Preset" in the same place?
Ted.Vitale Are you talking about the settings in the "General Settings" window?
It sounds like you would need to be able to save to a file for those.
I see no option currently to save those, only option appears to be saving the "Visual Settings" to a file.
I disagree. Please do not add license plates.
Is the only difference between the images a change in the lighting type?
I would like to ask a clarification... assuming the same materials are used for the floor, etc., in that scene, is there a logical reason why an IES light with a similar amount of illumination would show up as less specular?
I know in general light sources always show up in reflections (would be nice if we could turn this off what I am VERY curious about is if an IES light has the ability to mitigate the AMOUNT of reflection that shows up.
If anyone has clear insights on this please chime in. If I create a test for it, I will report back.
If the settings were saved per "Scene" in sketchup I would expect that behavior would be possible. I believe this is in the works?
If you chose "Saved to project" you need to "Load from project"
If you chose "Save to file" then you would "Load from file"
Did you actually attempt to render with the model flipped upside down?
If that does not work, I would be very interested because then we might have a hope of a workaround.
Rotate the model upside down?
1) What is the node editor you show?
2) Could you show awireframe for the rock example you posted? The image makes it look like your materials have displacement, which AFAIK Enscape does not provide for.