LWF 2.2 Poll ! Yes or No !

[kalografik]

My mistake.
Gamma do not act as Photoshop's Shadows&Highlight as I was thinking. It changes the position of grays.



On this graf you can see the way gamma affects swatches, textures channels, lights etc. Respectively the overall scene look

[instinct]

Erm. mind you that LWF is targetting to use the most even distribution of brightness across the whole range (aka linear).

sRGB is changing the most logical linear distribution to a curved distribution. That's like a HiFi stereo set putting the usual "Boost Treble and Bass" EQ on to please the casual user's ears. While that's fine to listen to your favourite Record it's not a good basis while working with the material. Hence Studiomonitors use the most linear Frequency distribution possible (once again aka linear). And it's the same concept really. If you send your 3d Output directly to your client...forget about LWF as you wont really benefit enough to make it worth the hassle.

And am not sure what you want to show with that diagram ? That's how Gamma works. Just take a look at "curves" in PS. Am starting to get the impression you didnt do your homework :P

Regards,
Thorsten

[Pixelab]

"we jumped on the bandwagon a couple of weeks ago with a few new jobs.

we aint going back."


Same here............!

Same too

[Morbid Angel]

the funny thing about gamma is, its sole purpose initially was to improve image displays on TV. But, funny enough a lot of people use it all over, not dealing with tv at all. Like archviz for example
For me, gamma allows to produce better images with fewer lights. TV, Film or otherwise. Also, pretty much all of out compositors do not know what is linear work flow. So I dont bother arguing with them about this whole gamma thing, rather I output the images with gamma embedded to them (not exrs, but something like 8 bit pngs, for tv series its good enough) and let them finish the job.

[ShaunDon]

We started using LWF about four months ago, and while we don't use it exclusively, more and more it's becoming our standard way of working.

I don't really understand the complaints people have about the lack of contrast. Initially when groping my way through the LWF workflow, people complained that my images were looking washed out. But once all the elements were working, I find my renders a lot more predictable and efficient.

Here's an image we did of a rustic ski condo interior, all with LWF. The daylight scatters through the interior model much more thoroughly than it did before, but by no means is there not full contrast. To my eye, this was some of the most natural lighting I'd ever done!



That being said, I don't mean to sound like "LWF is the one true way." There are a million different paths to creating a great imagery.

Thanks,
Shaun

[kalografik]

Thornsten,
It's a good comparison, that LFW can be used as an equilizer.

I was tinking that gamma pushes midtones both ways, widening greys and shortenig highlights and darks. Making those test I realize that gamma push midgrays one way, shortening black and widening highlight zones.

Despite my mistake my state, that using gamma above 1.0 changes the way of how light spreads, is still not changed.

With the chart I wanted to show the way the light is redistributed when increasing gamma. My interpretation is (I'm not sure is it true but it's seems to me logical, Vlado have to confirm or reject) that light ray falloff become longer, bounces more, do not die fast because the engine has treshold. This affects shadows to look unnatural. Shadows become pale at distance while dark enough at corners. The shadows gradients look similar to gradients in my chart. It seems like shadows are pushed deep into corners while stay still crisp enough but pale at borders.
This shorten rendertimes because shadow density is lowered.
Exterior with bright sun but washed shadows has unnatural look for me. Yes you can see every texture and detail but you loose lighting faithfulness.
There are many component in perceptions when the eye decide the image is realistic and the lighting inconsistency I mention above do not help.

In the real world light have constant characteristics and we cannot equilize it.
All we can do is to adjust ourselves

[ene.xis]

that light ray falloff become longer, bounces more, do not die fast because the engine has treshold.

thats the all point!
goodbye fill lights interior lamps turned on even though the light is burning in the outside, or any kind of fakosity...thus more predictable, easy adjustable(less lights= lesss pinners to control), and shorter rendertimes.

This affects shadows to look unnatural.

i have yet to understand why u think so...an example would be gr8!
mind u lots of examples on how to screw up ur lighting solution completely, but because of user error rather than lwf error

[kalografik]

ShaunDon,
In archiviz interior renderings lighting is not the prime subject. So here LWF works great and fast.
About the image:
When you get print this image big the rendering will be really close to eye perception, because the eye scatters, rememder details, and put pieces together. That will be the reason the interior would looks faithfull when big. And the client will be OK with those good ilustrated interior space.
But till showed small the image is percived at first look. Then you loose the influence of the detail. For me the rendering looks flat and broken. Look at the walls, the floor and the ceiling structure, they are flat, but have to be more dinamic to jojn the parts. Shadows are week and hidden far under the sofas and chairs. The image lacks space feeling.
In this rendering you demonstrate well modeled and textured furnishing. If this is the goal OK. But if you try to show the living space I think you have to turn gamma back

[kalografik]

ene.xis

sorry I have no interior of mine rendering with Vray. I work only exteriors for 4 years.
But if you try to find examples of bad LWFshadows it wouldn't be hard.

You can show example of best image you have or seen prodused with LWF too.

[Sawyer]

It seems to me that if this conversation is going to continue and is going to be constructive it needs some visual aids examples or something. Otherwise this will be another hard to grasp discussion of a concept that has most people at least mildly confused.

[Morbid Angel]

this image was rendered with LWF.



I did it as a study.

[kalografik]

Sawyer
If LWF works for you and you like the results then there are no place for confusion.
The conversation really get change the starting point.

[kalografik]

Morbid Angel
Same comment as ShaunDon's rendering.
For me - Exelent modeling - but flat. No air inside despite sunspot.
Exelent modeling exersize. You are perfect

[Morbid Angel]

I didn't model this. Someone else did. How often do you see haze atmosphere in cg interriors? Im sure there is something to be said about every render, even if its perfect. However if you are set to attack everything that will be said to address LWF, then there is no point to continue this thread.
Moreover, its whatever works for you. You like LWF you use it, you dont then you dont use it.

[kalografik]

Morbid Angel,
Perfect render? I'm agree with you, there's no such animal.
I'm not talking about atmosphere efect. I'm talking about that there is lack of dinamic(gradients) along the light distribution over the scene. The light travel too far.
Notice the following:
-door is lighted on such way so its supposed to be dark behind it...but there we can see beautiful painting.
-the wall behind the left CRT is far from the computer... oh mistake I see the desk is close because there is sharp pale shadow touching the CRT cable.
- the poster is flying
- chair too.
- whole the desk setup looks detached and decomposed.
- the bed is flat as a spot and takes too big portion from the image
- the walls and floor are lighted strangely flat too. The wall do not touch the floor
-real shadows are transformed to thin contours.

In the real world, in the very dim interior places you can see more light dinamics than here in this image. But here we have two strong sun sunlight sources. Dinamics must be much higher. Then shadows would place each part at right place. In our eyes objects interaction is measured by the light intensity so don't be afraid from the dark.
When "equilize" the light we confuse our distance metering thats why the image need a little bit more REAL light to get spacious.

I have no intention to attack all the imagery produced with LWF. I have no time to waste talking about how we different and how we differently percieve the world. As I said I'm bored of that artificial look, despite this I wouldn't reject this easy and flawless workflow when working for money. Actually I do this all the time even before LWF. I make "exposure" braketing and choose what to see and what to hide and achieve the same fake results... but the clients are happy.

But the point of this thread was "Is the LWF produce fotorealistic images"

I'm already tired to explain my state on english in differen ways. That's the reason I would answer only if untold already in my previous posts. By the same reason I wouldn't comment more images too .