I’m not surprised the ancient Optics node was retired at some point – it was slow and outdated. But I was hoping to find an MX alternative of some sort, with no luck.
Any ideas? What I liked about Optics was it’s out of the box cool fiery electric energy.
I can use combinations of other things of course, glows, glints, etc. But maybe there’s something that already approximates Optics?
Thanks
I really miss the old optics node. It went bust when something changed in the way Flame rendered. I’ve never found a good replacement.
Optics used the Accumulation Buffer (first in IrisGL on RealityEngine2, then in OpenGL on newer SGI hardware) for rendering, and even though I played around with that code way back when (making it work in 12 bits on RealityEngine2 for Inferno 1.0), I could never make heads or tails of it, had to accept that it just did its thing and sometimes the results were cool…
JFP in the house!
I seem to recall trying this a while back using a light with the Blooming node in Action.
The real blooming node, not the Stingray CameraFX one.
There’s also in Action the Physical Glare you could try and highjack?
Just I find it delicate to use before it shoots off and looks like trash.
Hey Ben! Yeah Physical Glare in Action is quite limited. I really wish I had been on that beta cycle.
I end up doing post comp stuff with ls-glint, which is better than Sapphire.
But really none of those by themselves would achieve out of the box Optics. I got there, it just took more work and layers. Clients are happy, so that fact means that it is perfect.
Ahh yes, Ls_glint. Yeah Optics had a really cool, for lack of a better term, analog look to it. It was very convincing I think.
Funnily enough, optics was the first thing I used on Flame, along with the tracker, there was nothing like it available on Harry back in '94.
Yeah, the devs introduced some promising “physical” features, but they were never fully fleshed out and made any better than traditional post-comp ops. It’s a shame. There is so much power in Action that has not been tapped.
Yep and I actually think when used right physical defocus looks better than any other options. I know there was a thread about the best looking defocus and after reading it I went back I did some tests to make sure I wasn’t crazy.
The 2 issues with it are, one that the image is always being affected even at no defocus.
Then the second issue is it’s very unintuitive to use. It’s actually not enjoyable to use even. There’s something about the controls that feel overly convoluted and just off. I can easily take way too long to get it to where it needs to be. Which is a no no in Flame work.
But again I also feel when you are able to dial it in correctly it does look noticeably better than any other option.
So I completely disagree with everyone in that thread… LOL
I do note that I was on the beta during its cycle and did report some bug issues but I should have spoken up on how much I did not like the controls.
I honestly thought, “well I guess I just don’t know enough about 3D and should try to learn it the way it’s been implemented”.
I was excited when I heard about the physical stuff in Action. But unfortunately I have not found any of them to be better.
Flame Action is a fertile yet underused goldmine.
@FrancisBouillon, look forward to exploring the future.
There may be something in the works from a Flamer and innovator right now. Shall we have Optics??
I actually just use physical defocus this week because I just needed something that would create a different looking bokeh after much back and forth with a client. Ended up with a very pretty and visually interesting DoF but it was… not enjoyable to use. That being said, I might start pulling it out a little more after seeing what I could get with it, maybe with some experience I can stop worrying and learn to love the bomb
Is there a reason you can’t use Optics now? If you enable “show legacy nodes” under the batch bin you can use it.
The behavior is nothing like it used to be. It used to be look great. Now it’s a few steps short of mediocre.
Hey, thanks Bryan. I forgot about the hidden nodes thing.
Try it in log not linear.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. I have it a good go last week but it just disappointed me at every turn. That and zdepth.
Such a palaver.
I think it’s not designed for linear color space. It looks good to me in log.
I think it’s deeper than that, but that stuff is not part of my general knowledge base. It may look correct to you, but you probably didn’t use it in 1998.