I had a little conversation with a friend of mine, whom I was trying to convince in the use of LWF ! My position was that LWF is always more photorealistic and real rather than working in Gamma 1.0.
So after a small fight and a bottle of Coca Cola, we decided to ask ALL of You and raise a poll for it. BTW, he claimed that working in Gamma 2.2 is FAKE !
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I know LWF is useful and is easy way fighting overburns when working interior scenes.
But is it photorealistic? I think LWF at Gamma 2.2 change the light falloff curve incorectly and flatten the image. So it’s close to the use of “Shadow and Highlight” in photoshop and produce flat and washed images.
please vote whether LWF is PHOTOREALISTIC* or not, and not how much you use it.
*Photorealistic = camera device production and is NOT what human eye can see.
I chose - I prefere a different gamma, but actually I would say Yes.
That is after many tests, I found that gamma of 2.2 was a bit overbright. And a gamma balance of 1.8 or 0.555 would actually make a much better balance for blacks vs highlites. But defenently use gamma.
Ive lagged behind the LWF for alot of the same reasons as suurland. But Ive been intrigued by promise of needing less lights, less samples and quicker render times. So Ive jumped on board… for now
I’ll try to explain my stand, despite my poor english.
human eye - has ability to accommodate fast
video camera - has auto exposure on the move
photo camera - need soft boxes, fill lights, AEB, RAW etc to reach needed balance to shoot.
but they do not sacrifice “picture” dinamics as LWF did, just to see some hidden in the dark details, or to see the furnished kitchen of the neighbour building through heavy greened branches accros the well trimmed yard. This happen only in archiviz and is far from realism or photorealism
I have to say my works are archiviz like too and I do not resist all that stuff with LWF. I just want to say that it’s not fotorealistic as Cadelero tried convince me.
Also I’m bored of all that soft lighted, slightly shadowed, texture sharpened, oily floored, heavenly looked vray style modern art interior renderings that is supposed to admire because of hard light setups in our current top GI MAX engines
Kalo, try the tutorial on sun and sky.
Of all things, that ain’t far from a picture (in fact, it may even help to have a 32bpc image saved and post-processed), with its contrast and brightness ranges.
It still has a 2.2 gamma applied, which someone referred to as LWF (not me, mind you).
maybe not. and you’re totally right, films are very far from being linear, it’s only computers that behaves “linearly”. but it’s so much easier to work, and comp and doing post when you keep your workflow linear. and once you have a full float output it doesn’t take that much to regain that “log” look.
Im still in the undecided camp. I spent weeks researching LWF getting my head around it but just didnt get very good results in the end. I’m yet to be convinced to make the switch.
…don’t forget, digital arch viz is isn’t only about photo realism, it is heavily influenced by traditional arch viz, which has thousands of years of precedents behind it.
I find it very useful. But i still have no idea why is it specifically set to 2.2. I mean, i know all about the curves, the LCD/CRT standards and whatnot, but i find many screens reacting differently to this specific value, and when i started reading about screen calibration the thing got even more confusing.
The way i see it is - Maxwell has a gamma value, Maxwell produces stunning images. As i started using the LWF in vray, my renderings started looking more like maxwell ones. Nuff said.
along the lines of what i was curious about from the original poster. is he reffering to applying a 2.2 gamma to a linear color space, and saving it as a floating point format, or is he applying a 2.2 gamma to a linear color space, and saving as a 8 bit format.
the later, of course, creating an image that is similar to a linear with a gamma of 1, but without the extra info it would have it were a float image.
…hell, maybe i am not using the term floating point correctly.
