A render using LWF

[rmejia]

Lwf

Well here's a quick test. The fist image is Gamma 1.0, the Second Gamma 2.2, the third is an actual picture. As far as the sky goes ... the one in the Gamma 1.0 doesn't look too different from the Gamma 2.2

For final work, the skies I am just deleting them in photoshop (alpha channel) and using pictures I have taken. Although sometimes the VRaySky looks nice and I will leave it.

[Shimakaze]

As far as the sky goes ... the one in the Gamma 1.0 doesn't look too different from the Gamma 2.2

gamma changes darks more then brights so that's not so odd.
Most LWF issues can be traced back to poorly calibrated (or just generally bad) monitors.
But that goes for non-LWF problems as well.

[dlparisi]

Well here's a quick test. The fist image is Gamma 1.0, the Second Gamma 2.2, the third is an actual picture. As far as the sky goes ... the one in the Gamma 1.0 doesn't look too different from the Gamma 2.2

The sky doesn't change that much but it looks as though all you did was change the gamma and not the materials and camera settings (for the gamma 1.0 image). The gamma 1 building is way to dark, to get it to expose correctly you'd have to open up the camera which would most likely push the sky to pure white which is pretty far from the gamma 2.2's blue sky.

[jujubee]

@dlparisi - To me that sky is still too dark. I would hope it would be more vibrant. There's still no comparison in my mind between a Vray Sky and a Maxwell sky - Maxwell sky always looked more vibrant/realistic.

Also, the shadows should have more blue contribution in them from the sky. If you look at shadows in the real world - especially on a clear snowy day - they will almost always have a faint blue cast to them.

I would also expect there to be more yellow highlights in the brighter areas where the sun is more directly hitting an object.

But I don't think this is a problem with LWF, but rather a Vray sun/sky incompatibility/gamma issue or simply that the Vray Sun/sky needs further refinements.

[jujubee]

@rmejia - the model is pretty brilliantly lit there. I think the white would need to get turned down a little to match the real building however I do like how the 2.2 rendering reads better.

As for the sky in 2.2 - you can see that a weird thing is happening there. The building looks great - the background - bleh. It shouldn't be a neon turquoise color. That's exactly the type of problem I always experience with LWF and exteriors - either too dark or too bright - never any in-between.

I would just love to be able to use a Vray sky and LWF straight out of the package instead of having to comp things in. It would also make animating a whole heck of a lot easier.

The sky doesn't change that much but it looks as though all you did was change the gamma and not the materials and camera settings (for the gamma 1.0 image)

Agreed.

[paulison]

Well here's a quick test. The fist image is Gamma 1.0, the Second Gamma 2.2, the third is an actual picture. As far as the sky goes ... the one in the Gamma 1.0 doesn't look too different from the Gamma 2.2

For final work, the skies I am just deleting them in photoshop (alpha channel) and using pictures I have taken. Although sometimes the VRaySky looks nice and I will leave it.

Yeah if your LWF scene is rendered out with the gamma at 1.0 it is going to look completely wrong as your image does here in the comparison. Just like my 1.0 gamma scenes look florescent neon if i suddenly change gamma to 2.2 and click render.

I really liked andronikos's example from earlier in the thread. Its probably one of the only LWF exteriors i've seen on this forum that actually looks good. He has managed to use LWF while retaining some contrast in the shadows and colours otherwise the direct sun loses its impact. So id be interested in his workflow which obviously isn't your typical LWF setup.

I used to use artlantis a few years ago which had no GI and to be honest a lot of the LWF examples given look worse than these. You really do need a bit of contrast between light and dark areas - go look at some photo's as a reference. If you get a 1% variance in the colours from the swatch then your images are going to look 99% flat arnt they?. You need the iinfluence of the colours from sky, sun, other objects and other light sources otherwise you may as well just take a wireframe to illustrator and paste flat fills everywhere like everyone seemed to do in the 80's for their architectural presentations.

I had a client once (stupid interior designer) who said my colours were all wrong etc etc so i rendered out a flat elevation with no direct sun, just ambient light and said that this was the final marketing image with 100% accurate colours:P. Images speak louder than 1000 words?.

[werticus]

lol, does he ever ask you again about the colors being off ?

no he trusts me now.

[Neilg]

While it IS possible to get results similar to the second sets of images, it often involves a ton of post work for which I think Andro did very little seeing that it is for animation. Try getting those results for a still - now try getting those results for an animation.

Firstly, when you said 'I wasnt talking about the first image', neither was I.
I've really not had the same experience as you then. Why do you assume that you cant make a good image without lwf? It's been done plenty, over and over, but the second lwf came around did your opinion change of all good images done before it? It changes something to do with the maths within your lighting, it does NOT change how your image looks. That is the artists decision.
Shit visualisers make shit images, and good ones can make an image look real straight out of max no matter what technique they use.

Its hardly the best example, but the last image i posted up here 'classic interior' was done entirely to disprove this. Practically no postwork (none on lighting/contrast levels), no fancy colour mapping and done in 3 days. Unfortunatly everyone kept ignoring that and continued to assume i'd used lwf... Incidently thats what started my hate campaign towards it.

[Shimakaze]

I think this forum needs a sticky that explains to people what LWF actually is, and more importantly, what it isn't...
Seriously this whole issue has gotten way out of proportion

[Neilg]

I think this forum needs a sticky that explains to people what LWF actually is, and more importantly, what it isn't...

How about "It changes something to do with the maths within your lighting and saved image to make it more 'accurate' in a computer based sense, it does NOT make you a better artist by default."

[instinct]

it doesnt make you a better artist indeed...and just as without making a bad picture doesnt get more difficult with LWF...still it DOES change how your image looks :P

[jujubee]

Cubicle - to be honest, the reason why you are probably 'against' it is because you don't know how to use it in the first place.

As for 'changing my opinion' when LWF came around, I was one of the first few people on the Vray forums (well before the other forums) to use LWF based on Throb's original information. I 'simplified' it a long time ago to help other people out (I believe it was on page 7.) I'm not bragging, but I am stating that I was a very early adopter of this method (probably before 99.5% of all other people now using it.)

Since then, other people have 're-simplified' it, released videos, posted their 'findings', posted false information, challenged it, tried to explain it, etc bullshit on the Internet. Most people are completely wrong - they're too lazy or busy to do the homework of understanding the concepts behind it so misinformation constantly spreads and has become even more confusing.

Although I thank Throb and a few others immensely, part of me wishes that I never experimented and posted the results for others to see. I should have kept the simplified version to myself and very few people would be using it today.

No - it hasn't changed my opinion. Very few people could get similar results 'before' and they hardly can't 'now.' Mind you, this was well before 1.5 and physical cameras and vraysun/sky. Even after 1.5, it's still a challenge.

People can get similar results (and in some cases better), but often with a ton of post processing work often needed.

[Neilg]

Cubicle - to be honest, the reason why you are probably 'against' it is because you don't know how to use it in the first place.

First off, you can go *edit -cant be bothered* yourself.

I just used it on a massive animation job with greenscreen, Ive used it a number of times. I was around when it was first brought onto the forums doing tests in our office reading what other people were doing getting it going properly, and all the different methods. I think we both got it nailed about the same point, if I remember your posts correctly.
I do know how to use it, I just see a lot of people having very big misconceptions about what it actually does. It does not make you better at making images, period. People are saying it does, and thats what ive got issue with.
I'm not even going to touch your comment about non lwf requiring postwork. Thats irrelevant. (and wrong)

And then ive got to put up with people like you patronising and putting me down because I dare to speak badly of it? It's a complete joke, and this is my final say on the matter.



Yeah i'm throwing insults, but just because youre not using words classed as swears doesnt mean I dont find them any less insulting.

[instinct]

*sigh* we reached the ping pong insulting phase already ?

[Neilg]

I wouldnt need to if he would bother reading what i'm actually saying about it.