Yes, ID passes do not work with motion blur and depth of field, and the only solution is deep compositing, just like it would be for Blender Internal if it actually supported these features.
The thing is that you can list many missing features in Blender Internal as well. No depth of field, no 3D motion blur, no proper indirect light or HDRI environment lighting, no diffuse glossy interactions, no emission from volumes. And even more inconsistency problems like no SSS or hair curves in reflections, render passes not working for node materials, wrong transparent shadows from material nodes, no hair curve shadows with lights other than spots, wrong fresnel and specular transparency, hair shading that you have to light with separate lamps to get decent results, volume stepping artifacts that are impossible to get rid of, very difficult to do motion blur and depth of field with transparent objects, no way to texture various settings, no correct light falloff, broken bump mapping in reflections, no correct area lights, and so on. I'm not trying to say one is better than the other here, Blender Internal certainly has more flexibility in some areas. But if the question is, do feature X and Y work together properly, then the answer is yes *much* more often in Cycles than it is in Blender Internal, and in fact I like to think that this is the case when comparing Cycles to most other renderers as well. Hi Daniel, of course I know you can change that on the menu, what I'm saying is that BI is a feature complete render engine (maybe not the best quality ever but it's complete), Cycles is not complete, one more example: The render passes in cycles are most of the time unusable, try to get an object ID or a material ID pass from an object with motion blur for example. Some of the 'features' are on the UI but they are actually not usable for production. In my opinion if you have a 'feature' that is unusable is better to remove that feature from the UI until it's ready. I started rendering a shot in cycles thinking that I could have material and object passes with motion blur and I realize that these options are not usable at all and I had to fake these passes in other ways. All I'm saying is... Yes, I'm looking forward to have Cycles as the main engine BUT only when it's fully featured and not having inconsistency problems as the ones I mention. Also it has more limitations from an artist point of view to tweak the lighting and managing the light in comparison with the BI. Even Arnold render fakes many things but in cycles is trying to achieve realistic rendering results which is fine but not really allowing the artist sometimes to adjust settings in a non-realistic way (example: shadow color on the rendering). _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
