A render using LWF

[Jonferimonic]

Id like to see a good ol fashioned punch up but i dont know if my money would be on the camp cowboy or the grumpy gangster.

[beestee]

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.

LWF is a tool, just as VRay is a tool. If you can use the tool to correct issues that you would otherwise be putting a lot of focus into, and better yourself in other areas, how does that not help a person to become a better artist? I am certain that scanline could be used to produce equal quality images of almost anything that is seen here. What's the difference? The scanline artist puts a lot of time and focus into illuminating their scene, time that the VRay artist would use to focus on other aspects of thier "art."

[jujubee]

Sorry. I just don't know why you insist on putting it down when we are all just trying to focus on producing great images regardless of differences in methodology. It does a remarkable job and is a lot more accurate, at least for interiors.

Do I think it's the answer to all our prayers? Absolutely not. But I'm waiting patiently for a better method to come along and haven't seen it yet.

btw - I'm not grumpy - ok well maybe a little bit.

[jujubee]

Oh - I guess I'm the camp cowboy lol... god damnit.

[Neilg]

LWF is a tool, just as VRay is a tool. If you can use the tool to correct issues that you would otherwise be putting a lot of focus into, and better yourself in other areas, how does that not help a person to become a better artist?

I'm having my words twisted and the point of my argument misinterpreted again. I didnt stray too far from this, i was on about the attitude that if you dont use lwf you cant be good and that using lwf makes you better. And that if you dont use lwf then youre doing it 'wrong'. It's a very elitist attitude surrounding it, which is never a good thing in an industry like this.
It's mathmatically correct - but the maths doesnt concern 90% of us and doesnt govern the look of an image.

jujubee - What prayers do you have exactly? You think it does a remarkable job of images - but I think that the people doing remarkable work with it would be hitting the same standard if they'd kept on without it. Their workflow would be diffferent, but the quality the same.

[Shimakaze]

Oh - I guess I'm the camp cowboy lol... god damnit.

I wish everyone would just get along...
Does that make me the dopey hippie? God I hope not!!

[instinct]

Hm...i for my part never said that lwf makes YOU or ME better...and regarding doing it wrong...technically speaking sRGB IS doing things wrong. Especially in post. And that is not elitist bullshit but a fact. That doesnt mean (and i never said that if i recall right) that you can't do excellent images without lwf. I still remember some kickass scanline images that would still stand great even by todays standards...yet i avaoid scanline by all means....

And i still dont see where i twisted your words to be honest...i see more of a hate campaign...maybe this thread should be brought to an end and a sticky for lwf haters and one for lwf lovers to make us happily co-exist again :P

Regards,
Thorsten

[instinct]

oh oh oh....good point Shimakaze :

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8

[Neilg]

And i still dont see where i twisted your words to be honest...i see more of a hate campaign...

You'd have a good point if I meant that towards you, because you didnt Ive not had an issue with what youve said.
I think it could be said ive voiced my 'concerns' now... no point in carrying on, haha.

shimakaze - Excellent point. And you're only a dopey hippie if you always carry a sheet of LSD around 'just in case'...

[jujubee]

I agree with you there - if someone is bad to begin with, then it will only help so much.

But then again, you can take the argument that before Maxwell and Fryrender, there were only 'mediocre' artists. Maxwell and Fryrender came along and was very simple for people to understand - not only that but these tools produced spectacular/realistic images pretty much right out of the box for any non-technical artist to comprehend. These mediocre artists became great over night - and that's why a lot of people fell in love with these packages. Simplicity and accuracy (albeit at painful rendering times.)

I don't have an elitist attitude towards using LWF. Not by any means. Do I think it is better? Yes. That doesn't make me elitist tho. Am I putting down anyone that doesn't use it? No. But that still doesn't change the fact that Max works in a completely different gamma space than 85% of all the other graphics applications on the market.

jujubee - What prayers do you have exactly?

Actually I don't pray as I don't believe in god - figure of speech. But I do 'hope' that Vray continues to make incredible strides towards photorealism leveraged by speed and simplicity.

but I think that the people doing remarkable work with it would be hitting the same standard if they'd kept on without it

I think that's impossible without Superman's 20/20 Linear vision. You can get spectacular images with previous and new methods granted (and there's older work such as Zuliban's and Giraffe's that continues to be amazing), but the time involved tweaking these scenes appears to be a lot greater. From my experience, it's not worth the hassle when you have deadlines.

[beestee]

I'm having my words twisted and the point of my argument misinterpreted again. I didnt stray too far from this, i was on about the attitude that if you dont use lwf you cant be good and that using lwf makes you better. And that if you dont use lwf then youre doing it 'wrong'.

It does not make you better at making images, period. People are saying it does, and thats what ive got issue with.

[Neilg]

You said using it as a tool to develop a skill within it makes you better. That I agree with. It's called practice and applies to any aspect of life.

Switching to lwf does not instantly make you better, and not using it isnt 'wrong' and doesnt mean you cant make good images.



Well done you did it again.

[jujubee]

Ok - about time I post an example:



I created this still with only 3 full test renderings only. There were no region renderings. There were no renderings of furniture up to this point. The fourth 'test' rendering was the 'final' as seen here.

This scene is also animated - there's also 5 other rooms. Texturing, lighting, and furniture of all 6 rooms took <1 week.

There's some mistakes in this image - my refrigerator has a geometry error and a pillow is cutting through a couch. But that aside, it was under an extremely tight deadline and no time to fix.

How can you get these results with these minimal amount of tests with any other method - consistent through an animation?

[Shimakaze]

Switching to lwf does not instantly make you better, and not using it isnt 'wrong' and doesnt mean you cant make good images.

Indeed, it doesn't make the artist better but it does make Max better. (if done right that is)

[jujubee]

I should add the lighting is not optimal - the sun is on the other side of the building. But this is according to plans.

Oh also - there was no post other than a touch-up on a minor lightleak.