Very true. So just leave the difuse color swatch to black.
Thanks.
am downloading at the mo, lookin forward to watchin them,
Thanks man,
Tom
i watched’em at work today.. very nice indeed 
thanks
Probably one of the most informative videos I have watched. It explains a lot about intensities and colors that I didn’t understand.
Thank you very much
Travis
good to see them up for all to see.
Did you do the section on bitmaps yet?
Thank you all for the kindness, I’m glad I am giving back at least something to a community that gave me so much, for once…
ChrisJ: There’s a small post further up explaining a trick to do that for textures.
I am working at a full length (3 hours is the target) interior lighting tutorial atm, anyways.
I’d like to set up the scene for both natural and artificial lighting under physcam, we’ll see where that’ll take me.
It’s a LOT of work.
My respect for people like Chris Nichols has just shot through the roof for being able to hold it together for hours 
Lele
This is something i thought would be nice to prepare, as it would provide a one-click solution to the conversion of non-physcam scenes’ materials and maps.
http://www.scriptspot.com/lele/VRay\_Physical\_Mats\_Converter\_v1.1.ms
It’s fairly self explicative, but I’ll give you a quick rundown:
The script first collects all (and only) the VRay materials present in the scene.
It will then check if the diffuse channel of those has a texture (or nested set of…) which has an RGB_Output property.
If it does, the rgb output will be set to original*0.255
If it is just colour, it will add in a VRay colour map, and do what i show in the tuts: copy the original colour over, and multiply it to 0.255.
The same happens with the reflection channel, only that if that’s set to pure black it will be skipped.
I preferred not to change the diffuse colour to black and map multiplier to 25.5 as if no textures are displayed, your scenes would look pitch black
The intended usage will be something like this: open an old scene, convert to physcam whatever camera was there, run the script, render an exposed view (or expose through the other script of mine), and UNDO if you don’t like it.
The script will roll back ALL the changes done to the materials with one undo.
Pease note that it will change any vray material in the scene, assigned or not.
It will print out to the mascript listener what material has been changed, and how (colour or texture).
Hope this will make it easier to test out my ravings
Lele
blame daforce if it doesnt work!
:lol:
:roll:
'Course, ye smarta** well steered away from this one, after having sparked it… :lol:
Poor DaForce is a kind heart, if a messy one, lol!
Lele
Bloody jumped up italian
:lol:
Aye, by definition! :lol:
Lele
too right 
:lol:
Thanks a lot Lele!
Great video! 8)
AE Settings?
Fantastic tutorial. Does anyone know how to tweak frames in AE7 to match the V-Ray Frame Buffer? Saving Cineon files worked, but zi cannot seem to match up hdr’s.
Thanks again ! This is a great script.
great script lele!! thanks alot.
well done, very useful videos, thanx a lot lele, but ..only a few questions…
please correct me if I’m wrong, I understand that using vrcolor map is someway similar to use cc plugin to darken color swatches (or not?), so
1. in which way it is different from the lut correction that is available in latest max releases (I’m still on viz 2005, so I can’t test it on my own)
2. the ISO values resulting from your test seems to me a little unconfortable if compared with the common ones, I mean 100 ISO is a sort of minimum in “real life”, isn’it!?
thanx
a.
loved your videos Lele. thanks a bunch
I personally loathe the CC plugin, and never use it, but multiplying 8bit rgb integers by a float value leads to a float value, so in a way it should be identical.
If, that is, the CC plugin was coded correctly, and i am definitely not sure it is (hence overbright and invalid pixel values are returned through vray).
Also, using the VRay colour map leads to precise end colour values, which isn’t the case for CCing them.
1. in which way it is different from the lut correction that is available in latest max releases (I’m still on viz 2005, so I can’t test it on my own)
LUTs are for mapping of 10bit cineons to 8bit images.
Here we work in 32bit float (~4 million values for 0.0-1.0 versus 1024), hence with a much higher precision.
My guess is that the LUT option is there for integration with flame and inferno systems (which lack support for 32bit images) used in high-end film production.
But don’t quote me on this
2. the ISO values resulting from your test seems to me a little unconfortable if compared with the common ones, I mean 100 ISO is a sort of minimum in “real life”, isn’it!?
Indeed.
I touch only ISOs for the sake of simplicity: that is a linear way to change exposure (i could have done it with exposure times, linearly as well, but already that is the reciprocal of 1. It may be more difficult for some with less of a mathematical mind).
Of course, feel free to lower F-numbers, and keep the ISOs in a “confortable” range.
I’d like also to set a few points about this physicality fashion we’re all after.
First and foremost i hate Dslr.
I tried them all at work (stopmotion for kids for channell4 in the uk) and not a single one of them (from top of the range kodak and Canon to cheaper models) was able to shoot the same picture twice with the same results.
The digital light measurement is so very flaky it hurts.
And just so we exclude my ineptitude from the equation, I was on the set of “The corpse bride” of Tim Burton, and they had the exact same issue.
Stop motion has to be reprocessed in post for light balancing to get a usable sequence (we talk of taking the same set picture twice in the space of half a second…).
So I personally keep only analog devices in mind when comparing with my digital realm.
So, if we move on to the analog, I’d say we have a few more issues to take into account, that the VrayPhyscam at the moment does not.
Namely, the “loss” of F-Numbers when a Higher number lens is used, and the variation of that “loss” between makers of lenses.
I have a nice, very old, very lovely camera which has a 50mm, a 110mm zoom and a focal doubler.
Shooting the same thing with the 50 and the 110 means i have to compensate with the F-Stops to get a similar brightness. All the more so when i screw on the focal doubler (yeah no bayonet lenses…).
Since that piece of kit is a cheapo, i lose 2 F-Stops of brightness.
On top of that, film has development, that can be compared to post.
Talking only of ISOs makes little or no sense.
A 100 isos film from maker A will have a grain type, that from maker B another, roughly of the same proportional size. Both will have a smaller grain compared to the 200 ISOs of the same maker, and so on, but there is no rule cast in stone.
A picture shot within a church with no flash can be extremely bright given enough exposure time even with a 100 ISOs, and that can further be enhanced during development of the film and printing, thank the god of photography (or i’d have thrown so many pictures away, lol).
Ultimately both in the real world, and in the digital one, the only absolute i care about is the quality of the finished image.
The idea of getting to it in a simple way, somewhat faster and more precisely than previously possible is what thrills me about these “physical” tools.
I really care little about rematching perfectly a real life picture in the 8Bits of a Monitor. There is a LOT of room for correction and error both in the digital and in the physical world, most of which is out of my hands.
What i wanted to point out with the tutorial was that simply whacking sun and sky and physcam in a scene wasn’t nearly good enough to get the renderer to work in the right ballpark, as light shines on surfaces and within mediums.
So that those too have to be brought within reasonable ranges as well.
The perfect render is closer, but no cigar time just yet
Lele