Digital Art Zone

 
   
4 of 10
4
3Delight Discussion
Posted: 27 September 2012 03:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  127
Joined  2011-11-11
Kendall Sears - 27 September 2012 01:36 PM

You’ve answered the question right there.  Current unbiased renderers are predominately “direct” light renderers.  Most movie sets RARELY will use direct lighting, unless the director is looking for a specific effect.  Lighting will be filtered (providing limited wavelengths, or specularity), reflected or diffused (softening shadows, providing ambient), and any of a plethora of other modifications outside the scope of this discussion.

Lux has translucency, the Reality plugin for DAZ includes diffusion material as a prop which you can use as a scrim. Similarly, it includes a softbox prop but you can also achieve the same effect by just creating a large mesh light. There’s an add-on pack called real gels which adds several gobos that can be used for shadow effects. Plus, I can already dial in colour temperature of the lighting or a specific colour so I can already “gel” my lights. Any specific light modifier would be the matter of modelling it as a 3-d prop, not a limitation of the renderer itself.

Now I will agree, you can’t currently play with the spectral characteristics of the light to create certain effects. For instance, you can’t currently create a black light, and while you could get the right colour temperature for a crappy fluorescent light, you wouldn’t be able to properly model the colour shifts you get from the fact that it only covers a very small spectrum of light and is very “spikey”. But, I can already apply a film response to the render so it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility to model that type of effect, althought black light effects would still be a limitation and more likely better solved by converting the specific material into a mesh light and adjusting the colour and intensity accordingly.

OK, my question was rhetorical as I presumed the reader probably knew the answer.  In nighttime scenes, “blue” lighting is used to increase the recordable luminosity without increasing the ambience, and hence illuminating everything.  If you’ll look closely at those “nighttime” scenes you’ll see the “blue.”  It is not wholly dissimilar to “black” light which will only increase the luminosity of specific elements.  This is the reason one can see details in a “dark” area without getting the “nightvision” effect.  It is these types of effects that current unbiased renderers don’t handle.

This is untrue, I’ve rendered a night scene in Lux by using a NASA space map as my IBL solution and I placed a large mesh light a reasonable distance away as my “moon” light set to a very high colour temperature, leaving the film response set to daylight white balance to achieve the blue look you’re describing. It can be done. I’d attach the image but it’s on my other computer.

At the moment we have a distinction between biased and unbiased rendering only because the attention is on two products that only do only one part of the rendering equation.  Once, or if, Lux and Octane, can handle “contrived” lighting then the distinction will disappear.  It is the same with GPU rendering, it is special only because of it is lacking in a subset of the tools.  There is nothing inherently special about the tech that precludes its use in any one place.

Again, this is not the case, you can still “contrive” light in a physically based renderer. You do it the same way a film set does it. See Preta3d’s site for an example of this. Yes, the tutorial is mostly about reducing noise but it also demonstrates how to do contrived lighting properly.

 Signature 

Andrew Dacey
Photographer
Geek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  2004-05-24
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 03:42 PM

vrba79


When you say the standalone are you using the fee or paid version? I am also a Lux user after 7 months I am pretty well versed at using it and love the results it gives me, but this has me curious since i give 2 tier pricing for commissions using UE lighting… How does one send a render to it?

Free version, I have a dual core processor, so that is all I need.
As for how-to, you need to render to a .rib file.  I also tick that “collect resources” box.
Go to where it saved the .rib, double click the .rib and 3Delight renders it, if it doesn’t happen automatically, you can have windows associate .rib files to “renderdl.exe” wherever you installed 3Delight.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1401
Joined  2009-09-11
vrba79 - 27 September 2012 05:58 PM
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 03:42 PM

vrba79


When you say the standalone are you using the fee or paid version? I am also a Lux user after 7 months I am pretty well versed at using it and love the results it gives me, but this has me curious since i give 2 tier pricing for commissions using UE lighting… How does one send a render to it?

Free version, I have a dual core processor, so that is all I need.
As for how-to, you need to render to a .rib file.  I also tick that “collect resources” box.
Go to where it saved the .rib, double click the .rib and 3Delight renders it, if it doesn’t happen automatically, you can have windows associate .rib files to “renderdl.exe” wherever you installed 3Delight.


Thanks but I just read that it will be slower for someone who had a quad core like me I have a year old i7 8G quad core machine which is why Lux is working for me overall but like I mentioned offering 3Dlight for clients who may not be as concerned with the type of render a lower price option

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  54
Joined  2004-05-24
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 06:01 PM
vrba79 - 27 September 2012 05:58 PM
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 03:42 PM

vrba79


When you say the standalone are you using the fee or paid version? I am also a Lux user after 7 months I am pretty well versed at using it and love the results it gives me, but this has me curious since i give 2 tier pricing for commissions using UE lighting… How does one send a render to it?

Free version, I have a dual core processor, so that is all I need.
As for how-to, you need to render to a .rib file.  I also tick that “collect resources” box.
Go to where it saved the .rib, double click the .rib and 3Delight renders it, if it doesn’t happen automatically, you can have windows associate .rib files to “renderdl.exe” wherever you installed 3Delight.


Thanks but I just read that it will be slower for someone who had a quad core like me I have a year old i7 8G quad core machine which is why Lux is working for me overall but like I mentioned offering 3Dlight for clients who may not be as concerned with the type of render a lower price option

Sorry that it’s not going to work out for you, for me this is like sliced bread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1401
Joined  2009-09-11
vrba79 - 27 September 2012 06:17 PM
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 06:01 PM
vrba79 - 27 September 2012 05:58 PM
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 03:42 PM

vrba79


When you say the standalone are you using the fee or paid version? I am also a Lux user after 7 months I am pretty well versed at using it and love the results it gives me, but this has me curious since i give 2 tier pricing for commissions using UE lighting… How does one send a render to it?

Free version, I have a dual core processor, so that is all I need.
As for how-to, you need to render to a .rib file.  I also tick that “collect resources” box.
Go to where it saved the .rib, double click the .rib and 3Delight renders it, if it doesn’t happen automatically, you can have windows associate .rib files to “renderdl.exe” wherever you installed 3Delight.


Thanks but I just read that it will be slower for someone who had a quad core like me I have a year old i7 8G quad core machine which is why Lux is working for me overall but like I mentioned offering 3Dlight for clients who may not be as concerned with the type of render a lower price option

Sorry that it’s not going to work out for you, for me this is like sliced bread.

its cool overall my Luxrenders come out better I have shown my clients the comparison dine with both and 90% of the time they pony up for Luxrenders

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
Bobvan - 27 September 2012 06:01 PM

Thanks but I just read that it will be slower for someone who had a quad core like me I have a year old i7 8G quad core machine which is why Lux is working for me overall but like I mentioned offering 3Dlight for clients who may not be as concerned with the type of render a lower price option

Not necessarily true…while yes, the stand alone-free version, is locked to two cores, just the fact that it isn’t running in the context of Studio could speed the process up, immensely.  Sometimes even enough that a dual core rendering with the stand alone could actually beat a quad rendering in Studio (especially if it’s the Linux version of the stand alone running from a console log in…I’d love to have 3 identical machines to do a timing test…all three use the same scene file…1st machine Windows/Studio, 2nd Windows/stand alone and 3rd Linux/stand alone…I bet the Linux machine beats them all, by a huge margin).

And while Luxrender is great, it’s still slower, no matter what…until full GPU rendering is working correctly, it will continue to be slower.  I’ve been getting pretty decent results and decent times using the SPPM rendering mode.  I heavily tweaked the settings for it and saved them to a ‘dummy’ lxs file so I just copy and paste those settings into any scene I’m rendering.  For most things I can get decent results in about an hour on my aging dual core machine.  But, some of the same scenes, dumped to a RIB and rendered in the stand alone 3Delight render in under 15 mins.  (Yeah, the ‘look’ is entirely different, but usually both look pretty good.)

 Signature 

1432 old posts

My ShareCG gallery.

Just because something costs a lot, doesn’t mean it’s the best…

It just means it’s expensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 06:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1401
Joined  2009-09-11

I just ran a 3delight of the same type of scene I am rendering in lux (here is an example of the scene its my crossover of Fringe & Land of the giants story) http://fav.me/d5avfrb 3Delight was going to take 15 to 20 mins as oppose to the few hours something like this takes but I have learned not to mind it plus Lux rendering does not bog down my machine like 3Delight. I often queue render.  I download the standalone 64 bit file and have it stored in any case so when you choose to render where is it one chooses to export the RIB file? I am guessing I just then need to get the 3Dlight app to read the RIB file like exporting only with Reality which I do with heavy scenes.

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  416
Joined  2008-06-25

OK guys, anyone played with the point-based AO script that comes with the 4.5 release? I love it, but I wish there were an option to “collect and localise” while rendering to RIB. Otherwise it looks like DS has to be open at the same time (since it erases its temp .tdl files on closing, and the RIB references them) which sort of negates the benefit of using the standalone on my system (I only have 2 GB RAM, and please don’t tell me to upgrade - unfortunately I’m not a pro artist and there’s a lot of things going on in real life that won’t give me the luxury of spending time shopping for a new laptop, optimising the new OS, reinstalling my programs etc)

In short, could anyone please point me to the page in the DS4 script documentation that would allow me to put that “collect and localise” box there myself?

 Signature 

do your research before blaming 3Delight for shortcomings of your renders

dA gallery link in profile along with anything else you may need to know about me

my thread with freebies

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
Mustakettu85 - 27 September 2012 06:52 PM

OK guys, anyone played with the point-based AO script that comes with the 4.5 release? I love it, but I wish there were an option to “collect and localise” while rendering to RIB. Otherwise it looks like DS has to be open at the same time (since it erases its temp .tdl files on closing, and the RIB references them) which sort of negates the benefit of using the standalone on my system (I only have 2 GB RAM, and please don’t tell me to upgrade - unfortunately I’m not a pro artist and there’s a lot of things going on in real life that won’t give me the luxury of spending time shopping for a new laptop, optimising the new OS, reinstalling my programs etc)

In short, could anyone please point me to the page in the DS4 script documentation that would allow me to put that “collect and localise” box there myself?

You could always copy the files and then manually edit the RIB…it’s a simple text file.

And whenever I’ve ‘collected and localized’ I’ve gotten everything (but then again, I haven’t done the point based AO)

 Signature 

1432 old posts

My ShareCG gallery.

Just because something costs a lot, doesn’t mean it’s the best…

It just means it’s expensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1846
Joined  2006-02-17

Please read the 3rd sentence of my post that you quoted as well as the 2nd to last paragraph.  You will see that all of the points of your rebuttal falls well within those statements.

I’ll restate the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph and stop there: “In short, any renderer (with enough effort) can replicate the results of any other, barring deliberate design limitations.”

Kendall

adacey - 27 September 2012 03:48 PM
Kendall Sears - 27 September 2012 01:36 PM

You’ve answered the question right there.  Current unbiased renderers are predominately “direct” light renderers.  Most movie sets RARELY will use direct lighting, unless the director is looking for a specific effect.  Lighting will be filtered (providing limited wavelengths, or specularity), reflected or diffused (softening shadows, providing ambient), and any of a plethora of other modifications outside the scope of this discussion.

Lux has translucency, the Reality plugin for DAZ includes diffusion material as a prop which you can use as a scrim. Similarly, it includes a softbox prop but you can also achieve the same effect by just creating a large mesh light. There’s an add-on pack called real gels which adds several gobos that can be used for shadow effects. Plus, I can already dial in colour temperature of the lighting or a specific colour so I can already “gel” my lights. Any specific light modifier would be the matter of modelling it as a 3-d prop, not a limitation of the renderer itself.

Now I will agree, you can’t currently play with the spectral characteristics of the light to create certain effects. For instance, you can’t currently create a black light, and while you could get the right colour temperature for a crappy fluorescent light, you wouldn’t be able to properly model the colour shifts you get from the fact that it only covers a very small spectrum of light and is very “spikey”. But, I can already apply a film response to the render so it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility to model that type of effect, althought black light effects would still be a limitation and more likely better solved by converting the specific material into a mesh light and adjusting the colour and intensity accordingly.

OK, my question was rhetorical as I presumed the reader probably knew the answer.  In nighttime scenes, “blue” lighting is used to increase the recordable luminosity without increasing the ambience, and hence illuminating everything.  If you’ll look closely at those “nighttime” scenes you’ll see the “blue.”  It is not wholly dissimilar to “black” light which will only increase the luminosity of specific elements.  This is the reason one can see details in a “dark” area without getting the “nightvision” effect.  It is these types of effects that current unbiased renderers don’t handle.

This is untrue, I’ve rendered a night scene in Lux by using a NASA space map as my IBL solution and I placed a large mesh light a reasonable distance away as my “moon” light set to a very high colour temperature, leaving the film response set to daylight white balance to achieve the blue look you’re describing. It can be done. I’d attach the image but it’s on my other computer.

At the moment we have a distinction between biased and unbiased rendering only because the attention is on two products that only do only one part of the rendering equation.  Once, or if, Lux and Octane, can handle “contrived” lighting then the distinction will disappear.  It is the same with GPU rendering, it is special only because of it is lacking in a subset of the tools.  There is nothing inherently special about the tech that precludes its use in any one place.

Again, this is not the case, you can still “contrive” light in a physically based renderer. You do it the same way a film set does it. See http://preta3d.com/Kill the render noise form your Lux scenes/ for an example of this. Yes, the tutorial is mostly about reducing noise but it also demonstrates how to do contrived lighting properly.

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1846
Joined  2006-02-17
Mustakettu85 - 27 September 2012 06:52 PM

OK guys, anyone played with the point-based AO script that comes with the 4.5 release? I love it, but I wish there were an option to “collect and localise” while rendering to RIB. Otherwise it looks like DS has to be open at the same time (since it erases its temp .tdl files on closing, and the RIB references them) which sort of negates the benefit of using the standalone on my system (I only have 2 GB RAM, and please don’t tell me to upgrade - unfortunately I’m not a pro artist and there’s a lot of things going on in real life that won’t give me the luxury of spending time shopping for a new laptop, optimising the new OS, reinstalling my programs etc)

In short, could anyone please point me to the page in the DS4 script documentation that would allow me to put that “collect and localise” box there myself?

The “Collect and Localize” check box is in render settings tab in the advanced area.  It is grayed out until you activate “Render to RIB”

The files are collected into the “scene_collected” directory.  You will need to edit the .RIB in a text editor that can handle over a million lines of code.  Look for a reference to “brickyard” in a path.  Redirect that path to the location of the collection directory and you’re good to go.

OOPS!  You may also need to look for a reference to “Studio4\temp” (this path can vary dependent on your preferences, but this is the default) and redirect that to the same place.  It will depend on the specific shader whether there will be the “temp” reference or not.  It may not always exist in the RIB.  The same with the “brickyard” and “old_brickyard” references.

Kendall

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 11:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1198
Joined  2007-11-30
Kyoto Kid - 26 September 2012 11:23 PM

...this is why I still like using LDP2, SLP as well as making up my own light sets.  Lighting in and of itself is a very powerful medium. and biased rendering brings out what I feel is a more “expressive” quality.

I’m not even totally won over by IDL except when using CG models with photo based backdrops/settings (which is one of it’s better strong points).

stonemason won me over with the use of UE2 and one directional light for daytime scenes. I’ve mainly used LDP2 in majority of cases before I switched to UE2, and it’s very fine for what it does. But it doesn’t produce AO like UE2 does. I know it’s ‘faking’ light, but it’s part of what I do. wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 11:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1401
Joined  2009-09-11

LOL thats cool Norse as far as using Lux and the time it takes my thought became who am I hurrying for? Producing my 500 plus stories will prolly take over 6 months rather then 2 1/2 but they will be lots purdier. Most of my fan base could not care less if I png layers together or produce nice lux renders its just my preference. I dont tweak maps and stuff. I always been a set the scene apply lights adjust some materials when needed and render type dude…  I have already cranked out approx 600 plus renders since late feb..

 Signature 

http://bobvan.deviantart.com/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37909888@N05/sets/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  11023
Joined  2007-11-06
Norse Graphics - 27 September 2012 11:10 PM
Kyoto Kid - 26 September 2012 11:23 PM

...this is why I still like using LDP2, SLP as well as making up my own light sets.  Lighting in and of itself is a very powerful medium. and biased rendering brings out what I feel is a more “expressive” quality.

I’m not even totally won over by IDL except when using CG models with photo based backdrops/settings (which is one of it’s better strong points).

stonemason won me over with the use of UE2 and one directional light for daytime scenes. I’ve mainly used LDP2 in majority of cases before I switched to UE2, and it’s very fine for what it does. But it doesn’t produce AO like UE2 does. I know it’s ‘faking’ light, but it’s part of what I do. wink

...having worked with oils for much of my artistic life, I tend to prefer the quality LDP gives my scenes compared to UE.

Again, I also often build my own lighting effects from scratch as I worked in theatrical lighting.  ” A lot of what I did involved “faking it” for the desired effect.


...basically it is familiar territory for me.

 Signature 

...it’s five minutes to midnight…

I’d rather have a blue sky above me than a blue screen in front of me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 05:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  127
Joined  2011-11-11
Kendall Sears - 27 September 2012 07:40 PM

Please read the 3rd sentence of my post that you quoted as well as the 2nd to last paragraph.  You will see that all of the points of your rebuttal falls well within those statements.

I’ll restate the 3rd sentence of the 1st paragraph and stop there: “In short, any renderer (with enough effort) can replicate the results of any other, barring deliberate design limitations.”

Hi Kendall, wasn’t trying to start a flame war or anything, I completely agree that a lot of it comes down to what you’re familiar with and the skills that you bring to the render. I’d dabbled in 3-d in the late 90s and then spent the time since then pursuing photography so my understanding of lighting comes from the photo world. For me, using Lux feels a lot more natural because I can setup the lights the way I’d expect to light it for a photo shoot and get results that I’d expect to see. For me, I can get to the lighting results I’d like to see a lot more quickly than doing it in 3Delight but that’s a matter of where my experience lies. And note, I’m talking about scene setup time, not render times here.

That said, there’s been a few times where either for the look, resources available, or some other factor I’ve used 3Delight instead. I remember one time where I was trying to use IBL for a scene and just couldn’t get the lighting to look like what I wanted. In that case, switching to the LDP2 based lighting that was included with the scene prop I was using produced results I was happier with. But, when I’m setting up my own lighting in 3Delight I find that I often run smack up against the limitations of the renderer and all of the “fakes” that I have to do to make things look real (like recreating bounce off of the floor/walls). I’ll admit that I’ve not had much of a chance to really dig into UE2 and it seems like some of its options, like GI, address some of this.

The only thing I was trying to achieve in my posts was to clear up some apparent misconceptions in your posts. You’d mentioned that physically based renderers can’t do cinematic lighting because there’s usually more lighting in movies. My response was that’s not true, you simply have to light the scene the same way as you’d light a movie. I think this is fairly obvious given how physically based renderers work. You can’t expect it to produce results that require additional lighting in real life without using similar additional lighting. That’s not a limitation, that’s a feature (arguably the main feature).

 Signature 

Andrew Dacey
Photographer
Geek

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 10
4