Yet another Linear Workflow post...

[Clifton Santiago]

oh, sorry... missed that. Ditto what tct70 just said.

[Shimakaze]

Heh good call. Didn't notice that one.
I would say use the v-ray frame buffer instead though just cause I like it better. Having color mapping set to 1.0 and turning on the sRGB button in the vfb has the same effect. But that's just a matter of taste.
Also, note that since those gamma corrections are just for previews if you save the picture using those settings it will be saved without them. That's good if you use exr or such but if you save to jpg for whatever reason you should set the color mapping to 2.2 to bake the correction into the final picture.
Man this is getting complicated isn't it?

[Blitterswitch]

Thanks for your swift responses!

I agree about the quantity of IES lights - I asked a while ago on the forum how I should approach this and I couldn't find any other way of lighting up the space and being confident that it would be right. If anyone has any suggestions I would love to hear them!

I have re-rendered the image with 1.0 gamma in color mapping and used only the max frame buffer, I saved the file out with 2.2 gamma.



I feel that the image is far too dark and over saturated. I am at a loss to be honest. I really want to do this the professional way and use LWF as I hate the time I waste touching up images and fiddling about with settings. I also want to be able to output solid images from 3ds without ps because I want to be able to do quality walkthroughs.

Thanks.[/img]

[dlparisi]

I've personally never known whether "affect color selectors" should be checked or not. I leave it checked as the color I pick seems to match a little closer to the rendered swatch in the material editor. The "Affect COlor Selector" option doesn't change the value of the color numbers one way or the other though. Regardless, as Clif said, I believe there's no reason to apply a colorcorrect on top of that unless you need to.

Regarding the sRGB button, 2.2 gamma and the Max/Vray frame buffer: I'd advise against setting it to 2.2 as well - see http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpB...highlight=srgb, but I'd suggest leaving it to 1 but still use the vray frame buffer with the sRGB button checked since you'll have more options with the image.

[Clifton Santiago]

@blitterswitch: I think your screen might be too dark or something because I think your lighting on that image looks about right (except for the table tops... are they supposed to do that?)

I do not think that IES lights are necessarily more correct than max spots. Their illumination of the space would be different in any number of scenarios: in different rendering packages, different quality settings, different gamma settings (LWF vs. linear), etc. Plus they are much slower.

Also, if you are brightening the image in post, the whole idea of using them for lighting accuracy kind of goes out the window...

[Blitterswitch]

Agreed, I will have a play about with trying some max spots. I think the problem I had originally was the system units were set to cm and the other unit were set to mm and it lead to dodgy lighting.

Are there any settings which are particularlly important when using the max spots in vray or even generally?

I have only just today calibrated my screen to 2.2 6500k using my new spyder2 so I really hope that it is not the screen. It would be nice to be able to see how the image appears on your screen? Is this even possible?

I am starting to think that this is a lighting issue and not an LWF issue. I think that I need more light in the scene - although I am not sure because the whole point of using LWF is that you need LESS light.

Thanks.

[Clifton Santiago]

Well, if you've calibrated your monitor, then maybe its a matter of style. Most of the architects I work for prefer me to overlight their scenes. The biggest concern is often that a white ceiling often looks too dark. I inform them about the reality of lighting and point at the studio ceiling. They then decide to have me overlight the ceiling anyway.

When I was an architect, I thought I was pretty observant of the built environment. Now that I am a full-time visualiser, I've realised that most architects are completely ignorant to the laws of physics in relation to how light and reflections work.

Sorry, no offence if you're an architect...

[3ddesign]

Clifton, you are right about architects, but only up to a point. While most architects don't understand the physics of light, neither do our brains. What we "see" is not what is there but what we "perceive" to be there. When we enter a space, our eyes make a very quick, split second survey of the entire space and our brains process that first response and stores it for further use. Then as we proceed through the space, our brain uses that first survey as the base point for all other visual input. What we now see is compared to that first look and only new data, or data that drastically alters the first survey, is actually processed. Meanwhile, all of this processing is compared against previous experiences with similar spaces and filtered accordingly. If our brains think that the space has a white tile ceiling, then we "see" a white tile ceiling, despite the fact that it is actually quite gray due to poor lighting. This is why architectural photographers use tons of fill light when shooting a space. They try to create what the brain "sees', not what is actually physically there. This is why, in my opinion, it takes much more than a computer program to create realistic images of architectural spaces. Craig

PS to Bitterswitch: LWF is only a tool, not an end. There are many ways to create "accurate" images, so called, of architectural spaces. I personally use LWF but I also make a ton of tweaks in PhotoShop. Don't get too caught up in the process, just enjoy the end result, however you get there.