VraySky Differences using LWF

[jujubee]

I'm using burnt in LWF with default camera settings (vignetting turned off and white balance set to neutral), VraySun, and VraySky.

The first image is VraySky with turbidity set to default 3 and saved directly out of VFB.
The second is turbidity set manually to 2 and saved directly out of VFB. This one seems more natural-looking.

I know in other color models not using LWF, the sky appears more natural and vibrant - bring it into LWF and bam it gets washed out at default. I think it has something to do with VraySky's default gamma which is not adjustable - but not really sure. Any ideas or tips using VraySky with LWF?

[raymarcher]

you can always use color correction with the vraysky map

[voltron7]

Maybe others will disagree, but I prefer the sky on the right...

[jujubee]

Same with me - but the question is why do I have to change the turbidity to 2 to get it to look more natural?

And no - absolutely no colorcorrect from now on. It's buggy and Cuney is making no recent attempts to fix it or let someone else handle the code. I don't think it's going to get any better. Time for Vray to build this into itself!

[JeffG2]

Why not use Max's CC?

[jujubee]

VraySky doesn't work with Max CC - as least from what I tried. But even if it did, it still doesn't answer the core question as to why it looks washed out on defaults using LWF (seeing that LWF is the most accurate color workflow.)

[JeffG2]

"(seeing that LWF is the most accurate color workflow.)"

I gave up on it - went back to Reinhard (sp) with a burn of .35.

I'm much happier.

[tammo]

Yes, LWF is such a huge waste of time.

Just look at how many threads in this forum are about LWF problems.

I am happy with vray color-mapping and hope that this madness is over soon.

[jujubee]

LWF is not a waste of time - only if you don't know what you're doing. 95% of everyone that's tried to use it don't know what they're doing.

It is technically the most accurate. All linearization does is attempt to match colors between bitmaps, monitor, and color swatches so they all work in the same gamma space. Max is f*cked up to begin with and this corrects it.

On the other hand, working with VraySky and exteriors is a different issue as I speculate Vraysky was never intended (originally) to work in a linearized environment.

[dlparisi]

Jujubee-can you post a stripped scene with just the camera and sun setup? My sky renders don't usually end up like that - they're usually somewhere in between (even though 90% of the time I replace them). IMO neither of those image look right, the second render is a little too bright and light blue and the first is too dark. Have you tried the CIE sun?

[gimiky]

this doesn't particularly seem like a mathematical issue so much as an aesthetic one.. honestly the image on the left looks much more like a photo in LA. (more turbidity, more smog) also, what time of day is the sun angle at? kinda tough to tell from the angle you've got but it seems pretty late in the day, in which case the image on the right seems a bit bright. (of course it all depends on your exposure as well)

[Guest]

LWF is not a waste of time - only if you don't know what you're doing. 95% of everyone that's tried to use it don't know what they're doing.

It is technically the most accurate. All linearization does is attempt to match colors between bitmaps, monitor, and color swatches so they all work in the same gamma space. Max is f*cked up to begin with and this corrects it.

On the other hand, working with VraySky and exteriors is a different issue as I speculate Vraysky was never intended (originally) to work in a linearized environment.

Is this true? Is VraySun/Sky not intended to be used with LWF?