Studio Lighting.

[instinct]

Of course would and is most definitely expected. The amount of noise for area shadows is dependent of the ratio of the distances between the light and the shadowcaster and the shadowcaster and the shadowreciever. The situation of a lighting fixture is pretty much the most extreme situation. Due to the Shadowcaster beeing VERY close to the light compared to the distance to the shadow recieving objects you have a very big penumbra. And to smooth that big area out you need more subdivs than with harder shadows. Storing it with the irradiance map will smooth out the noise due to the irrmaps reconstruction interpolation, but it will also loose detail. If this is a problem with very soft shadows is a case by case issue i'd guess.

Regards,
Thorsten

[rajdarge]

I only tried this effect because that is what that SLIK studio is doing. I just wanted to see its effect with vray. I suspect that to get high quality results with SLIK studio, you need to do something like the irradiance map shortcut. Losing detail is really not that much of a problem as long as the eye is fooled - the model is the focus of the image, and the secondary subjects need not be so sharp or clear. I was just trying to prove to myself that the SLIK approach was the wrong one.
I have been using 3dsmax spotlights as speedlight and spotlight analogues, the problem becomes standardising intensity and colour between these and the vray area lights. I have to find a nice spot-light IES so I don't need to rely on 3ds max lights.

I still don't know how to do an efficient egg-shell grid modifier for a sofbox. any suggestions. Is there a way of creating your own IES lights?

[JeffG2]

Storing the irradiance map will also kill your specular highlights.

I mean kill them like driving a stake through Dracula's heart.

[rajdarge]

I had forgotten why I didn't use that option much for rendering.. Now I know.
Will the same thing happen if I make a 3d HDR probe and render a dome light with it?

[raymarcher]

http://cgpov.com/?attachment_id=323
Somebody is taking up the challenge:

[rajdarge]

Do they need any assistance?

[raymarcher]

http://www.agtoolcompany.com/

done, fair priced too

[rajdarge]

It does integrate pretty well - but it is well below what I would require. Again its primarly designed for rendering 3d objects in a studio kind of way. I plan to Camera Match my images at very high res with a real model and a 3d background. So I need to match as much as possible the real lighting without shooting a light probe. Here are what I beleive to be the problems:

It doenst work in fstops.
It uses a simple map for the light which takes about 10s to setup
No mention of grids, (that is accomodated somewhat in vray 2.0), snoots
Light settings are not real world (Watt seconds or Joules).
No idea if it optimises render settings in Vray (things like light cache, light settings etc) the only parameter it seems to play with is shadow samples

The reason it falls far short I think is that its designed for a different purpose. Therefore it doesnt have the "photo studio" workflow.
The s-scurve background for instance is not particulary useful because the floor of my studio is fixed. Its designed with the renderer in mind, not the photographer.

Raj

[smashley]

The Studio Light Rig absolutely has the studio workflow. What makes it great is that it doesn't restrict you like a real studio would. I've used it on MANY table-top product related jobs (mostly commerical work with high standards of quality).

Sounds to me like you may be trying to re-create in vray what you shouldn't need or even want to re-create (IMHO ). The beauty of doing product renders in 3d is that we aren't restricted by physics. We can put lights anywhere at any intensity to achieve the desired results. We don't have to black out stands or hide imperfections, or lower cumbersome grids.

If what you want is to make amazing looking studio renders quickly and easily, Studio Light Rig all the way.

If you are trying to somehow clone a real studio environment, with accuracy right down to the watts, it's probably not for you. Its simply a tool for making pretty studio images.

Good luck whichever way you go...keep us posted!

-chad

[rajdarge]

Thanks for the feedback.
But these are the type of images that I am trying to create:
(I apologise in advance for the nudity) - if it is against the TOS here, I will remove the images.




both of these are my 3d work,and the girls have been photographed by someone else.

These are taken at 4000x5000 (appox).
so the res has to be high, and the studio match has to be high.

I need to work in fstops so I can also take a 3d image rendered in max and then match my studio to that setup.
I experiment with light in max cause lugging around a 3m softbox is a PITA.


So should I be doing this (as you suggest I shouldn't): absolutely I should
Will the studio product showcased here do that: absolutetly not.

To say that I am limiting myself to the real world is a mistake. The real world can be sooooo nice.

With the advent of Vray 2.0 it has become possible to achieve a REAL studio workflow
I just need to figure out how.

Raj

[Dariusz Makowski (Dadal)]

I got 1 advice for you mate... Photoshop.

Learn it hate it/love it and abuse it. U wont do anything in 3d without it, U wont get hd/real accurate lighting from max because simply physics aren't hight enough to do it in my opinion. Depth of shadows and so on would never be as deep as in photography, not now at least.

Dont bother with all these ''studio'' set-up they just money scamers. Model urself few objects learn how to get with the tools u got the effect u want and thats it. And abuse RT ofc... The rest is a lot of photoshop... actually if u can do it in photoshop instead of max do it...

Also start studying noise... photographic noise and digital noise and how to fake it in ur renders they tend to be quite helpful...

Good luck...

[rajdarge]

Most of my images are photoshopped, but there are many things that photoshop cannot do easily and 3ds max can. Especially if you don't have the stock photography on hand. For instance the snake in the 2nd image.
If I could have matched the background to the girl, it would have made the job a lot easier. Modelling the snake was a snack, lighitng the snake in the correct fashion was not.
Raj

[Dariusz Makowski (Dadal)]

Maybe consider looking in to matte painting and so on... Thats what I'm doing now, a lot of thins u cant do in max cos u don't have enough time.. its a lot faster to paint it with a basic shape/lighting from max...