WIP | 2nd update | interior (only dir. light and sky)

[timmatron]

Lookin' really good now! I'm doing a similar interior right now, so it's always fun to see how others are approaching it.

[flipside]

cool mate

I need to get to grips with the lightcache thing

keep posting updates

The good thing is, it's extremely easy! If you use it for second bounces, turn off all filters and leave the rest as it is and the render will look good. For more detail lower the sample size a bit. For testing, set subdivs at 250.
that's all!

[siliconbauhaus]

flipside...cheers mate

I'm going to be doing a few renders soon as soon as I get the model done. I think I'll try the lightcache to see how it works out

[fabrizio]

very good images.

BTW can you tell us the values of dark and bright of color mapping?

thanx

[Gijs]

first image I don't quite remember, but second one uses 1 / 1 exponential color mapping

[flipside]

I used color temperature to RGB convertor

Were did you find that? I searched the net, and came up with a few wich all give different results...

wouter

[Gijs]

http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rgirardi/kw_rgb.html

here you can give the reference temperature. I used 6500K for white point

[flipside]

Thanks gijs.

I was also trying the same in my appartment scene. I tried various things like linear vs exponential mapping, and with or without vraylight in the window. Each seems to have it's problems.

The nicest results are still with linear mapping, but post processing is needed to prevent burnouts.

Exponential also works well, but the image always needs levels or screen/overlay correction to remove the washed out effect.

I also seem to have less GI artifacts with exponential mapping compared to linear, altough GI settings are the same. Don't know why this happens.

Also the direct+sky only gives lots of problems to prevent objects from floating. An area light in the window gives very nice shadow details and lets you use much lower GI settings.

I think it depends on how good the clients eye is which method is best. I don't think many people notice floating objects, so sun+sky only works well in that case, because it's fast (no area shadows from a big vray light)

What are youre experiences/conclusions from your tests? Did you post process the images posted above?

wouter

[Gijs]

Hi guys,

here is an update. Have still been fiddling a lot with sun and sky color.

Flipside, below the VRay output, secondly an adjusted version (slight curves adjustment), and thirdly the second image with a bit of glow applied.

I think this version has big improvement, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
plain output:

curves adjusted:

glow applied:

[flipside]

Hi Gijs,

I agree on the improvement. Are these rendertimes with IR map etc included?

Wondering for your IR/LM/color mapping settings

[Gijs]

Thanks Flipside,

here some technical data

Rendertime is including lightcache and irradiance prepass.
lightcache: 1000 | 0.01 | screen | prefilter 15 | filter none
irradiance map: high | samples 40 | interpolation 20
AA adaptive QMC 1/4
AA filter off (I've done some tests and filters take a lot of render time)
QMC: early termination 0.85 | noise tresh 0.003 | min samples 8 | global subd multiplier 4
color mapping exponential 1/1

all glossy materials subd 16
all glass reflect/refract depth 12

For me exponential is still the best despite the fact that it can wash out colors. But HSV doesn't look correct to me and linear is too ehh linear. Vlado told intensity exponential is similar to HSV. In tests I've done it looks slightly different. But still it doesn't quite convince me. I think exponential is closest to what I believe is real, but still there is room for improvement. I have yet to see a color mapping that simulates the behavior of a human eye
I am now rendering a closup with rendered depth of field. Let's see how long that takes (10 subdivisions...)

[flipside]

Hey Gijs,

These settings are quite similar as what I usually use, except for the IR map samples which are rather high with a global subdiv of 4.

I found that when using a vraylight in the windows, you can use high sample size for LM, this helps removing artifacts in difficult areras. Detail on important scene objects is provided by the area light.

[edit]Still I wonder why in your initial test there were many artifacts, and this one is pretty clean. Is the main thing the IR map subdivs you increased?[/edit] ---> never mind I reread your first post and see the MANY differences now

About AA filters, if you select none, vray uses it's own box filter or something like that if I remember well. So you still have a filter actually, only a simpler one. For some materials with fine bump details or patterns, these filters can do good things, I think it will depend very much on the scene if the std filter is the fastest or not.

I agree on the color mapping, there's still no ideal one. The linear is the most correct one if you compare it with a real camera, but real photographers also use lots of tricks to get lighting right. The human eye color mapping would be great

thanks,

wouter

[tom schuelke]

Yes somehow this would be the best.

I am not sure if any of the programmers did ever see a scientific project that looks at the human nature of looking.

hmm maybe max logarithmic exposure also could be an option as it now works together with vray. Only problem seems tobe antialiasing in this case.

i also feel that the more physical the aproach gets, the more realism the immages get, this is why i like this aproach, only environementlight and a direct light.

best aproch in this meaning thinking of unbeleavable realistic results seems to be to use maxwell if youve got all time of the world.

no i realy love the quality of maxwell s immages, but for usual rendering no client would accept its rendertimes.

maybe vlado can explain a bit more of those exposure things.

Tom

[Gijs]

Tom,

I am following the Maxwell forum dayly. And I agree there have been made very nice and realistc renderings, but I have also seen a lot of crap renderings out there, while people went completely nuts saying how beautiful the render was. I think the biggest benefit of Maxwell at the moment is the enthousiasm of its user base, not the engine per se. And the most beautiful renderings are 95% stunning modeling and texture work. The same can be said about Vray, only Vray is 10-100 times faster

[siliconbauhaus]

very true

I can get a very good image out of vray in very little time....instead of waiting hours for something that's iffy at best....but it's fun to learn