A render using LWF

[Shimakaze]

jujubee: Looks good. Wouldn't have noticed the errors if you hadn't pointed them out.

[Neilg]

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

3 days, 2 batches of test renders total - one when there was no furniture to tweak my wood material and another 2 the next day to make my shadow casting look better.

http://www.chaosgroup.com/forums/vbu...ad.php?t=40373

No lwf. It was animated on the 4th day, when the glow and chromatic abbration was applied in post to achieve an identical result.

Now i'm not saying mine is better than yours, because I wouldnt consider myself a great artist - but it serves to prove that with a non lwf setup and next to no postwork you can get a result with a good amount of depth between the shadows and highlights.
Are you not done yet?

[jujubee]

I don't want to have a pissing contest, but I had to do a total of 6 animations, about 20+ stills (with a ton of changes) on about 10 different projects on no sleep for 2 months straight all the while custom modeling, trying to run business, and other life stuff. And the changes were non-stop. Another person did the structural and some minor furniture placement (a lot of which got changed) on this scene. Aside from structural aspects (I'm not an architect), it was pretty much all me running on very low 'fuel.'

But yes - your image is excellent. The lighting is a bit dark but very well executed. It's hard for me to gauge the accuracy of your colors or how it will look brightly lit. But what is apparent without knowing your client's demands, is that you have a method which works well for you. I'm not sure if you have other people helping you out as well.

It's hard for me to gauge the time involved, the number of people who worked on this, or your comprehension of the tools mixed with efficiency.

The quality of our two images in my opinion are on par with each other. In some ways, I think your scene's modeling (mostly the trim-work) is more interesting.

[beestee]

I would say that the fault lies in unrealistic expectation moreso than those who have touted LWF. To add to Shimikaze's comment, the LWF switch does instantaneously give the artist accurate and predictable feedback, but the artist must learn how to use that feedback and work within the new environment.

Is there anything in the creative industries that can make an artist instantly better? I feel that the complexity shroud that LWF has been wrapped in would be enough of a hint that this is something that requires some experience and learning.

If anyone is to blame for any misconceptions, wouldn't it be the ones who are disregarding reason?

[jujubee]

Here's a slightly larger LWF version - still not the 4k full size:



Please remember - no post other than light-leak at the ceiling. No special effects/mood lighting either. And it's semi-brightly lit in comparison.

[Neilg]

If anyone is to blame for any misconceptions, wouldn't it be the ones who are disregarding reason?

hahaha.

it's a quote which either of us could say and both of us would put down with complete conviction.
You dont sound too prepared to consider anything from ground level, and rest assured i've got no time to argue over bent languange semantics, so how about we leave it?

[sea2stars]

Allright, we'll call it a draw.

[jujubee]

Well - most people are NOT going to get cubicle's spectacular results 'out of the box' and also without a greater understanding of older methodology and Max interoperability. You also have to take into consideration consistency.

That's a difference here.

Very few people that obtain his results are willing to teach others fully how to achieve that with the method he chooses to use. I know for the most part that I am one person - for all I know I could be up against an army of computers/slaves and post-production experts.

I'm not saying that I am a great/knowledgable artist by any means, but prior to LWF my renderings looked like garbage in comparison.


I should add - we really need a 'benchmark' interior and exterior scene to compare the results by individuals using various workflow methods. And we also have to be honest in the amount of time we would spend (and documented) to achieve those results (without any post-processing ideally.) A side by side comparison would really help the community.

[Jonferimonic]

No one will ever get results like 'da gangstas' from one render.
This is because he is a highly advanced robot that we have installed in our office and he is programmed to always be two steps ahead of the competition. Ive tried to uninstall his potty-mouth plugin but it always reinstalls itself while we're not looking.
Down boy!

[beestee]

hahaha.

it's a quote which either of us could say and both of us would put down with complete conviction.
You dont sound too prepared to consider anything from ground level, and rest assured i've got no time to argue over bent languange semantics, so how about we leave it?

Did you happen to read the rest of that post?

Obviously, by your apparent apathy towards LWF, you do not see it as an instantaneous be all end all solution to an artists problems, and rightfully so. However, I feel your intention with the strong apathy is to drown out the validity behind LWF since you feel there is no need for it. Does this make you any different than the person misrepresenting it from the other side? It just so happens that the artist seeking knowlege on the subject is really the only one who suffers because of the extreme contrast of opinions from both sides.

I say let the artist make their own decision, if they have questions then just state the facts and set the emotion aside. If you notice a comment that seems to praise LWF in an inaccurate way, point it out, but don't discredit LWF based on that one comment. Every time I choose to involve myself in an LWF discussion, I try to make it a point to clarify that most of the benefit from using LWF comes from the learning experience.

[rmejia]

Yeah the gamma 1 image I put was just to show the sky, the materials where all configured to gamma 2.2 with VRay color. Regardless I don't know how well the colors could match in the gamma 1 image if done properly. Values close to the actual RGB values of the paint where used and the camera settings are the same that where used for the actual photo.

jujubee: That image is looking real nice, I like the soft lighting quality

[Shimakaze]

I also think the so called "spectacular" gamma 1 image looks dark, dirty and gloomy.

That's because you're viewing it on an sRGB monitor It's the picture that's wrong. Not your monitor by the way.

[rmejia]

That's because you're viewing it on an sRGB monitor It's the picture that's wrong. Not your monitor by the way.

Exactly!

[jujubee]

Well - I don't like to bicker but I do put up a fight and don't generally back down too easily. My apologies to everyone, but I hope it was at least entertaining.

As I've said before, honestly I can care less what people use. I think this method is more accurate however and I think people generally get better renderings this way 'out of the box.' Many people are of the same opinion.

It was never my intention to put down anyone else - and I'm sorry if anyone takes offense to a statement such as, "people that usually criticize it are the ones that don't know how to use it in the first place." While I may be wrong, that's often quite true in most situations. My apologies if it was taken as an insult. Perhaps it could have been phrased more delicately.

Now - we need to move on and see some comparisons.

[jonahhawk]

Before LWF


After LWF