The 2-sided material - real life study vs the rendered version

Hi. I’ve been debating this topic for a while and I have yet failed to convice Vlado there’s something not right with this material. Or maybe it’s just me failing miserably at using it the way it’s supposed to be used, in which case I’d be more than happy to learn the proper setup of it. :slight_smile:

So what is the 2sided material?

That being said about the material, we have established a few testing criteria:
• The material is used for simulating thin translucent materials like paper etc.
• You can assign different materials to the front and the back side of the material.
• The material is to be used on single polygon objects - objects without thickness.

First the real life study.
I set up a simple studio in my home. One single light (a table lamp with a 75w halogen bulb). A black table minimizing the reflected light from below. A white wall giving some diffuse light to the scene.
I used three test objects. The first being a single sheet of noteook paper painted green with a marker on one side with the text “FRONT” written at the bottom left. The back of this sheet is left unpainted, and instead marked with the text “BACK” in the bottom left.
The second test object is a sheet of the same kind of paper. This time a funny face is drawn on it with a ballpoint pen. Same texts “FRONT” and “BACK” are painted in the same place.
The third test object is a stack of four of the same kind of paper. This is to illustrate the opaque properties of the paper (comparable to a using a standard material in the render).

Two tests are conducted:
1. Front towards camera - How does the paper look from the front with no backlight (laying on the black table) and when it is lit from behind with as little front light as possible?
2. Back towards camera - How does the paper look from the back under the same conditions?

In photo 1 you can see how the papers on the table show almost nothing of the backside component - you can just barely make out the text “BACK” in the lower right corner. The green patch and the face is clearly visible, and the whiteness of the paper is almost the same as the opaque bunch of papers on the far right.
When backlit you can clearly see the text “BACK” shining through, and you can still make out the green and the face. The “opaque” bunch of papers have a slight shine-through of light. (I should’ve used more papers for this one really.) If you look at the top right corner of these papers, which is almost completely black, meaning hardly any light is hitting them from the front.

In photo 2 you can see the backside of the papers. Note how the green patch and the face is just barely visible when laying on the table. When backlit, they look almost as they do in photo 1 - only difference being the front side image is slightly dimmed.

Now for the renders.
I constructed a scene to mimic the situation in my home studio. I modelled paper objects to mimic the real life papers. Textures looking like they do in the photos were also created.
I use three different Vray2sidedMtl for the papers. One with the green front, and a white backside. One with the face, and with a white backside. One with a clear paper texture, used as both back and front material. The translucency in these renders is set to 64RGB. (Using numbers over 128 will really make this look weird.)

In the render, the papers laying on the table look quite ok. However, the papers are a lot less similar to the opaque stack of papers when compared to the situation in the photo - they appear a lot darker in the render. This effect increases as you raise the level of translucency.
When backlit, you can now ONLY see the back facing material, and NONE of the front facing. In the photo the backlit papers look almost identical no matter the orientation of the paper to the camera.
I have tried changing translucency, but the that does not change the fact that the front facing texture is completely ignored when the paper is backlit.

Other attempts
Turning the problem around, and instead tring to recreate what’s in the photo using other techniques, I’ve tried a few solutions. One, which… almost succeeds, is shelling the object and using different 2sided materials (with the same back and front materials) on the different sides. It kind of works, but the backlit image is blurred and dimmed significantly, and the render takes a bit longer. This really isn’t very useful. Image below.

Using the 2sided material without the extra back material
This is easily the best way to use the 2sided material - as long as you keep the translucency fairly low. In the renders below the translucency is first set to 96RGB and in the second image set to 255. The first render looks ok, but in the second one the papers laying on the table go almost completely black. I guess the only conclusion you can make of this is that you will have to keep translucency very low when working with materials like paper, or you will get unnaturalistic renders. This also removes the option of having two different sides of the material, unfortunately. Images below.

So what can we make of all this?
To me, it looks like the 2sided material fails at rendering thin objects the way they appear in real life. I have tried countless setups to recreate what I captured in camera, and have still not been able to do get it right.
In the photos, it is quite obvious that the backlit side is “added” to the other side of the paper, with only a slight loss of light due to the paper’s light absorbing structure. From the discussion the “V-ray leaves”-thread, this would break the energy conservation principle, but I’m sure there should be some way of describing this correctly in code.
Using the 2sided material without a special backside material, and at a reasonable translucency works satisfactory right now. The material can be used to make leaves that look kind of right. What I hope for though is that vray will one day have a material that works just like reality, with no need for lots of special tweaks.

I urge anyone interrested in this to download the scene and check it out - here. Maybe I’ve made a fatal flaw somewhere, and if anyone can make it work, no one would be happier than I.

It might be noted there are more aspects concerning real life thin object refraction which isn’t discussed here, like that happens when you shine a backlit object with an even brighter light from the front (which works rather well with the 2sided material, yet it behaves oddly). There’s also the discussion of how the 2sided material deals with different levels of reflection on different sides.

Sorry for going on and on about this, but having a 2sided material that acts just like a real thin, translucent object would solve a lot of problems, speed up work and improve render quality a great deal. Looking forward to seeing your attempts, and to reading the replies from ChaosGroup. Cheers!




Can you post your .max files for your tests? I still hold that the 2sided material can produce the effects that you want.

Best regards,
Vlado

Ah, sorry didn’t see that you posted it. Downloading now…

Best regrads,
Vlado

Cool! Good luck.

That download link was maybe a bit too well hidden. For all you tl;dr people - here’s the link again: 2sided

Will be watching this thread closely.

Here is one example - not the same setup but the effect can be achieved with 2SidedMtl


My_test.zip (20.1 KB)

Interesting! Will check it out.

What’s the conclusion here? With your initial tests windowlicker, did you not use 100% translucency in the 2sided material?

Did you get the correct results after Svetlozar’s scene?

The conclusion is… that I have been absolutely swamped with work this week, and just had time to glance at the file from Svetlozar. I have to compare them closely, because atm I’m not quite sure why he got the results he got, and I got the results I got. There is a slight difference in the setup of the scene, but the materials appear identical.. yet they render very differently. Hopefully, I’ll have some time tomorrow or on friday to look at it. Unless any one else here can spot the difference between the scenes. (I just gave it a 5 minute glace today though, so there might be something I just didn’t spot.)

However, the main issue is not solved. That being the situation in the photos, where the papers on the table “render” almost completely opaque, yet being very translucent when held up to the light. The papers in Svetlozar’s scene looked more or less the same when backlit and frontlit. I’ll post some renders of that as soon as I find the time.

Using 100% translucency (255RGB) will make the material look the last render in my initial post - picking up hardl any front light at all. I’ll test that on Svetlozar’s scene, but I do not think it will solve the problem. I really do hope it can be solved somehow. :slight_smile:

Would it be possible to get Svetlozar’s scene save as max 2012 too?

Here you go :slight_smile:

Unfortunately the textures are missing from Svetlozar’s zip file though. So maybe he can post them seperately?
My_test 2012.zip (19.9 KB)

I am sorry about missing textures - I didn’t upload them since they are already uploaded in the previous posts.




Aaaah! Okay! I didn’t realize that. Sorry :slight_smile:

Much appreciated John and Svetlozar!

Well, now I looked at it some more, and in Svetlozar’s scene there is an environment light causing trouble. Turn off the environment, and it will look as it did in my initial renders.

These renders are without any geometry other than the “papers”. They are backlit with a spotlight. In the first render there is an environment light, and in the second one the environment is turned off. (The only thing I changed in the materials was the order in which they were assembled, so that the pages with the “front” textures both had the “back” texture as the back material. The paper on the right has a single “clean” texture applied to it - same back/front material.)

Seems like we’re back to square one on this one. :frowning:


Hmm.. so because the front material isn’t receiving any lighting information directly it is calculated as “nothing”, where we would expect the 2sided material to actually let light information of the spot bleed through the object (based on the translucency settings) adding it to the front material so it would show up.

I think I’m beginning to understand why I simply couldn’t get some of my 2sided materials to look right in the past!

Looks like a problem in the 2sided material, no?

Hello there,

It is not a problem - it is just work this way. In order to get predictable result with it you have to have a least a bit of light in both sides of your objects.
In the example I post there is a sky override - if you disable it fully 2SidedMtl won’t give you the 2Sided effect at all - but if you turn it on even with very low values - 2SidedMtl will start to display both sides of the object.

I think that’s a matter of perception :wink:

In my case it was not what I expected to be honest. It’s kind of counter intuitive. If I add a light on one side of a translucent material I expect light to pass through the object, not that I need to add another light in the scene to make the other side catch light as well to be able to see it.

I think it actually makes it more difficult to get a predictable result, don’t you think? Since I now need to tweak the sky light / environment as well as the light behind the object as well as the translucency setting in the material? Or is the intensity setting of the sky light irrelevant for the 2sided material, e.g., intensity value of 1 gives the same end result as intensity value of 30?

On the other hand, now that I understand what I need to do and how the material actually works I can work around this “problem” :slight_smile: It doesn’t happen all that often that I have the material lit from one side only by one light anyway. I pretty much always have some GI going on.

Yep, there is something odd going on there, but I still can’t put my finger on the code where it happens.

Best regards,
Vlado

Yeah, exactly. I can’t put my finger on it - atleast not in any technical terms. I sometimes wish I had studied more maths at the university… :wink:

I wrote in the other thread (the one about leafs) that the light from the backlit side should be added to the front, but only if the backlight is stronger than the frontlight. I have no idea on how to describe that in mathematical terms, and you claimed Vlado, that it would break the energy preservation rule. I think the problem comes from the fact that there in reality is an SSS effect in the paper that lights up the actual paper, and thus making the frontside appear lit up. I think this is what has to be emulated in the renderer. Somehow. Being able to “add” the backside image to the front without breaking energy conservation is probably the key here.

I have some more photos that show what happens when you have a backlit paper and shine another, stronger light from the front. The interesting thing is that the front light “takes over” and again showing nothing of the backside.
Left is the pure backlit paper with the green front towards the camera. In the second photo I use a flashlight to shine a light on the front facing part of the paper. Now, you the green ink appears stronger (it’s somewhat burned out though, unfortunately). In the last photo i flip the paper around, and here you can see none of the green where the flaslight is shining. Now this side takes over, completely excluding the backlight.