LWF 2.2 Poll ! Yes or No !

[instinct]

Morbid Angel,
-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.

This is getting way out of hand...sorry not meaning to be harsh. but which of your "critisiscm" is caused by LWF ? You didnt know how gamma worked till two or three posts ago yet were flaming it. You didnt post your perfect image, but are bashing other one's pics. i bet if you post one of yours ppl would find problematic areas too. that has nothing to do with LWF.

Am gonna stop posting to that thread as i guess informative and constructive discussion has been left behind...

Thorsten

[dapeter]

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

Well then I suggest you go out and take some photos and study them a bit. Everything you're saying seems to be about the look of a rendering from an artistic point of view, not a photographic point of view. Do a Google Images search for ceiling beams and you'll see in many of the pics lit only by the sun, there's no great light intensity difference between the beam and the ceiling. The light is so diffuse by the time it reaches the ceiling/beam interface it creates an area shadow. For instance, take this photo:



Although there's some JPG compression artifacts, if you take this into photoshop the shadow on the beam to the right has a 3% luminosity difference across its range. Now, although it's obscured for most of the image, look at ShaunDon's second beam, it has the same properties as the photograph.

All of the shadows you're talking about that 'place' an object against another one are not really there in the real world, and therefore do not show up in photographs. So you can add it using ambient occlusion, which doesn't actually happen in the real world therefore it would never show up in photographs.

In my opinion if you want something to look photographic you should start from the idea of simulating the light mathematically, and to do that you need to use LWF.

[kalografik]

Thorsten,
I didn't mention nothing about the rendering. Every "critic" I mention was RELATED to LWF, exept that "bed takes big portion of the image". And if we were out of this thread I wouldn't comment at all. The rendering is good, smooth looking and archiviz like. But it was posted here to illustrate LWF. Thats why I decide to comment because I'm alone here.

Yes I was wrong about the exact way Gamma change light. But it's not change the basic thread and my state. It's the same as in the beginning.

I have no perfect image to post anywhere.

From now on would be just positive.

[instinct]

huh ? did see you beeing positive, but that's a different matter :P

dang, broke my promise not to post here anymore

Just browse through the image uploads section.

There's like a gazillion of image posts that have just the same critics as you posted...and the pics are NOT LWF. So in my eyes they are not related to LWF.

You have no no perfect image, but LWF fans should have them ? I just dont get your point. In order to accept any of our arguments we would have to post the impossible perfect image. Hence i am simply giving up heh.

But having taken a look at your homepage we maybe just have a different perception or a different taste, as i find most of the images both over-saturated and over-contrasted. And no that's not meant to diss at all. They arent bad, but i dont really like the look. So maybe we're just two different cups of tea


Regards,
Thorsten

[kalografik]

dapeter,
Artistic point is not touched in this thread.

This photo seems touched and flat a bit. It's look real because of "real" detail and imperfections. Despite this there's big difference in the shadows gradients with those in renderings prodused with LWF.

I'm well with the fotography

[kalografik]

OK Thornsten, let me be the cheaper one

Send me a link on PM just to see the other side, pls

...and world peace to everybody

[instinct]

wich other side ? the world of lwf ?

Well as said maybe you just dont like the outcome heh. The CL class was all linear:

http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpB...ighlight=class

In case that's what you mean. But am not sure i got you right there.

Regards,
Thorsten

[kalografik]

incredibly good work. Im very impressed. Take my bow.
I feel sooo small

[DaForce]

Game set and match.

Thorsten please step forward to receive your trophy

[priad]

eheheh funny thread,
I use always gamma but not only the 2.2 it depend of the situation of lighting.

[ene.xis]

...Despite this there's big difference in the shadows gradients with those in renderings prodused with LWF.

where?what do u mean?u seem to have an hand full of arguments to throw at lwf yet u seem to fail to justify ur coments
by no mean i think i m right and ur wrong...i just feel u might not, as it was stated earlier, have done ur homework properly!

[percydaman]

very difficult discussion because its so subjective to what any one person thinks constitutes a 'nice' image.

[ene.xis]

absolutely, but one thing is the nice term an another is wrong...

[kalografik]

ene.xis
I have no visual examples made by me about LWF. It would take time and IF and WHEN I'm ready I'll post a separate thread.

So for now I'm giving up, and let we decide I'm wrong.

After all and especially after I saw Thornsten's work produced by LWF I'm not 100% sure I'm really right. May be Thornsten is right that those "washed" look depends of scene setup.

So I quit for now.

[percydaman]

could just be people switching over to lwf and just not quite grasping that they dont need as many lights as before....