This is the image directly from the framebuffer, clamped to the sRGB gamut. My RGB values coming from each of these materials have less than a 1% deviance at this point. The image can be tweaked in post from here to look less flat, but then I will lose the color accuracy. I feel that we have hit a good balance with these settings to give a somewhat realistic look that does not compromise color integrity through the process. These are settings we have used for 6+ months now with the same results.
We have a “studio” max file set up that has 2 physical cameras(one for quasi-ortho renders, the other for perspective, both with the same absurd exposure settings) and 2 vray suns(at opposing angles to the front view, and likewise with some absurd settings) and a vray sky. The quasi-ortho camera and the suns are rigged to a 4 frame animation in which they rotate 90 degrees at each frame. We also have a render preset saved that we load when we are ready to render. Our material library draws it’s colors from psd files saved as swatches. This is so that any past project that is re-opened will have the latest matched colors applied automatically.
I feel that this process would not be possible without the changes that were initiated by setting up for LWF because of the default curve issue which the LWF settings address. In the previous scenario, we could get one range of RGB values consistent, but other ranges would be way off. Draw your own conclusion, but I feel that there is enough logic behind LWF that it really cannot be denied.
EDIT: Feel free to use this thread to post more examples of LWF and non LWF renders for comparison.
Seems like a lot of hassle for an average result to me. I get the initial setup bit which once done might speed your workflow up a bit and keep all your materials coming out the same but to me LWF is a lot of nerdology and technobabble. Sorry, dont mean to be offensive just chucking in my 2 cents worth.
Reflections are great but overall its a bit flat.
Honestly - this exterior does seem to be a bit flat. There needs to be more contrast - the brights need to be a lot brighter as well as the reflections. The top of the glass needs to reflect something as well.
If you are going to these great lengths to get accurate colors why don’t you just ditch the vray suns, sky and cameras and just use a direct light set to white and an environemnt set to a pale grey and just use a regular camera. Other than the angle of the surface to the light and some bounced light color your materials should be spot on. Why push and pull the sun, sky and camera settings which are based on real world measurements to acheive something you could easily get by just using the standard lights,etc. You’re probably still good going for LWF but I’d just ditch the other stuff unless you really need it.
That second one by andronikos is awesome. But there are a lot of factors contributing to its realism, not just the lighting. Casting shadows onto the building is a great trick for adding detail.
A couple of guys in our office could get similar results without so much fluffing about.
that’s good, I guess. and I vibe andronikos can render great images regardless, working linearly or not. and I don’t recall any fluffing from him when he posted those images.
Well I agree the gobos/shadows from the trees add a lot. But if you strip that away, the colors seem more spot on than the original image posted at the beginning of this thread.
I’m just pointing out that the washed out image is not (no offense) a good benchmark for LWF on exteriors.
We have used neutral lights in the past, but there is a quality to the tonal balance and depth that the vray sun/sky provides that you do not get with neutral lighting. We even approached a method of using a blueish environment light and neutralizing the value in direct sunlight through the RGB’s and intensities of the lights. Nearly impossible to push this method to an acceptable accuracy.
Pushing and pulling the physical settings puts it as close to realistic as we might get with swatch to print color accuracy. As flat as it may look when compared to the more stylized images seen here, it would be much flatter with neutral lighting.
We might not have the best looking images here on the forum, but they are straightforward, and we are not afraid to have a client hold a manufacturer swatch to our print. It has been quite some time since we have had to come up with any excuses as to why our colors did not look almost exactly like the samples that the client had picked and provided, and at least I have the peace of mind to know how to manipulate the vray sun/sky to suit the rare occasion that I can provide a more “realistic” set of images.
I do agree with others that LWF images might look rather “dull”, but that can be fixed with 1 minute of photoshop. Only thing is the colors change slightly. I personally think that even the “dull” straight out of the VFB images look alright. Using gamma 1.0 I think they look pretty bad and weird, shadows come out black and colors look to saturated.
I don’t know if andronikos did any post work, but his images look perfect.
But where are you measuring the accuracy of the colors in the image? I sampled your image in photoshop for the stucco colors and there’s a pretty wide range of intensities, even in just the areas directly lit by the sun. With all of the bounced light going around how can you back up the “1% deviance” number. And I don’t understand your comment about the “quality to the tonal balance and depth that the vray sun/sky provides that you do not get with neutral lighting”. Isn’t this tonal balance and depth exactly the stuff that screws up your scanned swatches to something that doesn’t match.
I can feel your pain about matching a clients swatch though. It’s just that I think you have done your clients a disservice by fooling them into thinking that the swatch they’re holding in their hand will look the same on the building in full sunlight. Your image colors might be “accurate” but your image also doesn’t look like it’s being lit by sunlight. If the intent of the images is to show a client color layouts, design,etc. they’re fine but I wouldn’t call them photoreal.
Minus texture, which we cannot get around(think our images are flat now?), we sample a smooth surface material under these conditions and check for value deviance in R, G, and B independantly…1% of the standard RGB 256 value range is about 2-3 points, which is much better than acceptable.
Believe me, we have played these cards before, and attempted to explain that showing a semi-realistic image with swatch accurate colors in full-lit condition is deceptive. We even rendered out examples to match existing condition photographs with renders that matched exactly to prove our case…but as strong as our case was, it still came down to the fact that these images are being viewed by various city councils under fluoroscent lighting condition.
Fact of it is, they can take our print outside if they want to see what the colors will look like outside, just as they would a swatch or material sample, so in a way, it is no more deceptive than your exemplary photographic rendering…or perhaps we should provide both so that they do not have to go outside?
What I also meant was what about the orientation of the surfaces. Surely a horizontal surface will get more light on it as well as other vertical surfaces might get less light. So is it just the one vertical face that you are trying to match?
Like I said, I feel your pain on this. Funny how though if you were to show them an actual photograph of the building they’d be fine with it vs. if you tell them it’s a rendering they’re suddenly saying “It doesn’t match!” Damn board meetings :evil:!
I don’t think it works like this ;). Maybe they should hold the board meeting outside :lol:?
