Luxus discussion

1262729313250

Comments

  • Mari-AnneMari-Anne Posts: 363
    edited December 1969

    Mari-Anne said:
    Hi Everyone!

    Just wanted to let you know I've submitted the Luxus training. It is in testing. It's out of my hands for a while now so when I know more you will. :)

    ~Bluebird

    I don't know if you've already mentioned this, but are you permitted to give us a sneak peak on what's covered? Is the training in the form of videos, PDFs, or some other format? Step-by-step instructions? How long?

    Oh sure!

    It is a video training series that goes step by step through the process I use to get my stuff over to LuxRender via the Luxus plugin.

    I am a straight forward thinker so there isn't technical jargon and a bunch of theory. This is exactly how I do it from A to B. I started the series with how I create my own lighting rigs in Studio and then what I do to prepare my scene for render via the Luxus plugin. I cover how to apply Luxus materials and lights and explain why I start with Studio first.

    I tried to keep this as basic and up front as possible because I don't enjoy getting confused when I am given too much information about a technical side when all I -really- want to do is make a nice render. The technical minded and deeper "how exactly does that math calculate" kind of thinkers will be better off diving into the dev side of things over at the LuxRender wiki.

    This is a video series geared towards creative minded, visual learners.

    Right now the series is 2 hours and 5 minutes in length but it is subject to editing.

    ~Bluebird

    Sounds really great, Bluebird. Count me in!! And thank you for the quick reply.

  • Mari-AnneMari-Anne Posts: 363
    edited December 1969

    Mari-Anne said:
    Mari-Anne said:
    I missed something in all the conversations in this thread about texture-material-shader presets. Is it possible to save the settings entered for the Luxus-LuxRender Material via the D|S Surface tab? I saved a scene file, thinking all the added Luxus parameters would be saved as well as the Render Settings but neither was saved. When re-opened the scene, 3Delight was selected as the render Engine and the Luxus Glossy Translucent settings I had applied were nowhere to be found. If I save them individually as Material and/or Shader Preset as well as Render Settings Preset, will that do the trick?

    The render settings don't get saved with the file, but all your Material and Light settings do. You can also save out a shader preset or a material preset or light preset and they will work as expected.

    Strange...when I select my figure in the scene tab, and the applicable surfaces in the surface tab (after applying all my Luxus settings) and click to Save As Shader preset, I get a message that I need to "select one object with geometry and one surface of that object." I have Aiko5 selected as well as the surfaces.

    Shader preset would be you will select one material.

    Material preset would be you select the root of Aiko5 in the scene tab and then all the materials in the surfaces tab.

    Thank you, SphericLabs - I am embarrassed to show my ignorance but I figure it's worth it if I can learn.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,258
    edited March 2013

    I am never embarrassed about admitting when I am ignorant of something as I see it as the first step in learning (and I'm ignorant of a *lot*) :)

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • FusionLAFusionLA Posts: 249
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    ...I tried to keep this as basic and up front as possible because I don't enjoy getting confused when I am given too much information about a technical side when all I -really- want to do is make a nice render...
    ~Bluebird

    That sound good from my perspective. I don't mind digging into details of something but to get started I need something simple. Diving into the deep end when I'm just getting started shuts my mind down. It's like my brain says "I'm bored, lets go do something fun." Diving into the deep end when I'm already well familiar with something is fine. :)

    That is just the way I function also...

    @SphericLabs
    Are there Index of Refractions presets in Luxus like in Reality?

    Screen_Shot_2013-03-21_at_7.00_.06_PM_.png
    269 x 166 - 31K
  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    @SphericLabs any chance LUXUS can save the settings, its getting to be a pain to keep re-doing every thing each time I start a new project.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    did another render of the volumetric tests, let it run over night this time (7.66K S/p) around 11 hours.

    tweaked the tone mapping settings a bit to get more color saturation.

    discovery2.jpg
    500 x 500 - 10K
  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    did another render of the volumetric tests, let it run over night this time (7.66K S/p) around 11 hours.

    tweaked the tone mapping settings a bit to get more color saturation.

    Very nice, any hints and tips for the volume settings?, im trying to do a scene with god rays.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    Rareth said:
    did another render of the volumetric tests, let it run over night this time (7.66K S/p) around 11 hours.

    tweaked the tone mapping settings a bit to get more color saturation.

    Very nice, any hints and tips for the volume settings?, im trying to do a scene with god rays.

    well I have the model and the light source (cube in her hand) as mentioned in the post on the previous page. the cylinder is 2.5m high by 10m in diameter. I don't think the glossy shader part matters but the volume is

    volume-shader-test.jpg
    539 x 789 - 110K
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited December 1969

    fusionla said:
    Gedd said:
    ...I tried to keep this as basic and up front as possible because I don't enjoy getting confused when I am given too much information about a technical side when all I -really- want to do is make a nice render...
    ~Bluebird

    That sound good from my perspective. I don't mind digging into details of something but to get started I need something simple. Diving into the deep end when I'm just getting started shuts my mind down. It's like my brain says "I'm bored, lets go do something fun." Diving into the deep end when I'm already well familiar with something is fine. :)

    That is just the way I function also...

    @SphericLabs
    Are there Index of Refractions presets in Luxus like in Reality?

    I can't answer your question but there are some mat presets with the content that came with Luxus but for IOR settings I use this http://www.robinwood.com/Catalog/Technical/Gen3DTuts/Gen3DPages/RefractionIndexList.html

  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    Michael_G said:
    Rareth said:
    did another render of the volumetric tests, let it run over night this time (7.66K S/p) around 11 hours.

    tweaked the tone mapping settings a bit to get more color saturation.

    Very nice, any hints and tips for the volume settings?, im trying to do a scene with god rays.

    well I have the model and the light source (cube in her hand) as mentioned in the post on the previous page. the cylinder is 2.5m high by 10m in diameter. I don't think the glossy shader part matters but the volume is

    Ok thanks.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    ah ha.. things are coming into focus for me now...

    cone-light.jpg
    1000 x 1000 - 193K
  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Rareth said:
    ah ha.. things are coming into focus for me now...

    Yup same here. :D

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    Rareth said:
    ah ha.. things are coming into focus for me now...

    Yup same here. :D

    ok the darker the scattering color (I am only using shades of grey for these tests) the more defined the light ray is...

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    tweak, render, tweak, render, tweak, render, tweak, render.. finally.. I think I'll let this one cook a bit

    d52.jpg
    1000 x 1000 - 37K
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited March 2013

    You got SSS going on the skin too Rareth?

    Post edited by Szark on
  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    You got SSS going on the skin too Rareth?

    no, I have the default "Lana" skin that came with genesis on the model, it seems to translate over pretty well.
    so any SSS is pure accident.

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited December 1969

    Interesting thanks. I just looked liked some SSS was going on down on the legs.

  • RarethRareth Posts: 1,458
    edited March 2013

    Szark said:
    Interesting thanks. I just looked liked some SSS was going on down on the legs.

    probably light reflection, the floor is glossy


    edited for spelling.

    Post edited by Rareth on
  • SphericLabsSphericLabs Posts: 598
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    @SphericLabs any chance LUXUS can save the settings, its getting to be a pain to keep re-doing every thing each time I start a new project.

    I finally figured out why mine save, and others people are saying their Luxus RenderSettings are getting reset. In the DAZ preferences there is an option to read/ignore the render settings in a scene file:. I need to make it so Luxus handles this properly so that it works as expected both ways. It important for render to render scenes to read the settings from the file.

    fssf.png
    455 x 518 - 48K
  • RenpatsuRenpatsu Posts: 828
    edited December 1969

    For me personally I keep and adjust the render settings globally across projects, which is why I got saving of render settings disabled when saving scenes. It should be possible though to e.g. use a script to set the render settings accordingly (and start the render right away), so I am having a look at that to create some "global" presets perhaps for e.g. GPU rendering etc.

    Saving render presets probably don't cover Luxus settings I guess.

  • stump3point1stump3point1 Posts: 139
    edited March 2013

    Michael_G said:
    @SphericLabs any chance LUXUS can save the settings, its getting to be a pain to keep re-doing every thing each time I start a new project.

    I finally figured out why mine save, and others people are saying their Luxus RenderSettings are getting reset. In the DAZ preferences there is an option to read/ignore the render settings in a scene file:. I need to make it so Luxus handles this properly so that it works as expected both ways. It important for render to render scenes to read the settings from the file.

    I'm impressed by the way you are taking the developement of this App so seriously. It's a good way of ironing out the issues by participating in this thread.

    To anyone who uses this App to it's full potential it help's to have dynamic and responsive interaction to hammer out a better solution. So often the aloofness displayed by some developers(not here of course but in other areas or Paolo for that matter who does a decent job) tends to never address some of their ongoing issues.

    Thank's.;-P

    Post edited by stump3point1 on
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited March 2013

    Gamma correction all in one post
    Hope ot helps others with it being all together

    Page 27 post # 393


    ......
    Almost all the textures that I encounter look correct when gamma is 1.0 When I set the texture gamma to 2.2, like they recommend, I get super-ized color.

    For those that want ultimate control over it there is Eluxir.
    Here is a an illustration on the matter. On the left is a single photo texture (from cgtextures.com); it is gamma encoded, like practically every photograph is. I added a black and white spot for reference. I applied this texture to a square primitive added a distantlight shining directly on it, pointed the camera directly to it and rendered with different settings (texture-gamma and tonemapping-gamma both with 1 and 2.2). The only "correct" result possible is the render looking exactly like the original texture. That is only the case when the texture-gamma is the same as the tonemapping-gamma. When texture-gamma is 1 and the tonemapping uses 2.2 you get the washed out colors resulting from the textures being gamma corrected twice. Setting texture gamma to 2.2 and tonemapping to 1, you will get the lower left image with the high contrast colors. It is not suitable for posting on the internet, but if i wanted to composite it with other images in gimp, i would prefer this image, because most compositing operations are linear, and i can add the gamma correction later anyway (linear workflow).
    So the two images (texture/tonemap gamma both 1 and texture/tonemap gamma both 2.2) look identical in this example. However, they only do because of i used a single distant light. In the lower two images i added a single pointlight instead of the distantlight, (invisible; above the white spot) and a white matte sphere in the center, and now the images no longer are the same. The image with the gamma 1 (left) is much darker than the image with the 2.2, while the colors of the textures are still alright.
    (BTW, the lower left image with the too dark pointlight, is a common problem with not only luxrender, but also with 3delight. It is often be dealt with by setting the light falloff to linear. That works to a degree because the gamma correction value 2.2 is very close to the square falloff exponent, i.e. 2, so the two are cancelling each other out. But this is only the case for the square light falloff, not for any other effects on the color. In particular that kind render (with gamma=1) will give nasty problems with transparency if one tries to composite it in gimp, photoshop and such, usually resulting in bright or dark borders where the objects meet with the background.)
    However with luxrender being based on physical models, there is no such thing as linear falloff pointlights anyway, hence the recommendation to always render with texture-gamma 2.2. For the tonemapping gamma you would normally use 2.2 (if you want the image to look like a photograph), but you might render with tonemapping-gamma=1 if you are planning on compositing the image in another application (and applying 2.2 gamma later), but you can always save as an openexr file which will never be gamma corrected anyway.


    Page 27 Post # 402

    Here is another example; i used stonemason's village courtyard and the sky/sun that comes with luxus. I did not change the materials, the sun was turned so that there is no direct light in view, so everything is lit diffusely. I rendered twice, once with texture/tonemapping-gamma set to 2.2, once with 1.0, no other changes are made. The results are below. The 2.2-image looks good, whereas the 1.0-gamma image looks like a 100 years old photography; i used the "autolinear" tonemapping that works like camera with automatic shutter speed; naturally the gamma=1 image would darker than the gamma=2.2 image, but the automatic adjustment makes it linearly brighter, which results in overly bright areas in the image (quite a few images in this thread look just like that), but the error is the texture gamma being 1, not the tonemapping, which makes it practically impossible to correct afterwards.

    Page 28 Post # 406


    So the correct things to do would be to default to 2.2, but if the texture is an exr or hdr default to 1.0 and provide a manual override.

    Page 28 Post # 413


    Essentially yes. In general gamma 2.2 is to be used for photographic textures and most other textures that contain colors and which are actually used as color textures. Exceptions are:
    - normal maps usually use gamma=1 regardless of containing colors (because they are not produced by cameras or paint programs, but are generated by baking)
    - most hdr/exr images contain gamma=1, because they are mainly built with lighting in mind, so the specification already says that the should be gamma=1.
    - transparency/opacity maps most often contain gamma=1 values.
    - bump and displacement maps most often contain gamma=1 values
    I think the last two (displacement/transparency) are often most difficult to classify. This is because of the process they are created in (i.e. a texture artist derives them from a photograph with gamma 2.2 by desaturation in photoshop, the devil knows what color-profile they are using, then trying it out in 3delight probably with gamma=1, until it looks good enough on an old uncalibrated monitor). But i think gamma=1 should be used in the most cases.

    Page 44 Post # 658

    .......
    Edit: So in Luxus, Gamma settings need to be changed from 1.0 to 2.2?
    I see multiple gamma settings gamma in Luxus: Texture Gamma, Gamma and Tone Linear Gamma.
    Which of these settings should be changed.
    Thanks.

    All of them.


    Thanks for the reply back.
    Now Testing with the 2.2 gamma settings.


    I disagree on the Tone Linear Gamma. I would leave that at 1.0. I have confirmed that Blender does the same.

    Page 45 Post # 663

    The Gamma discussion is complicated. I can recommend 2 ways. I am partial to the first, others partial to the second:

    1)
    -> Use all default Render Settings. Turn on the GUI.
    -> Render
    -> Change in the GUI to Linear Tonemapping and then adjust the light groups.

    2)
    -> Change Texture Gamma to 2.2
    -> Change Gamma to 2.2
    -> leave Tone Linear Gamma at 1.0
    -> Render.


    Presets is a good idea. Undo does work.

    Page 45 Post # 673

    The Gamma discussion is complicated. I can recommend 2 ways. I am partial to the first, others partial to the second:

    1)
    -> Use all default Render Settings. Turn on the GUI.
    -> Render
    -> Change in the GUI to Linear Tonemapping and then adjust the light groups.

    2)
    -> Change Texture Gamma to 2.2
    -> Change Gamma to 2.2
    -> leave Tone Linear Gamma at 1.0
    -> Render.


    Presets is a good idea. Undo does work.

    This is incorrect, they ALL should be at 2.2. (LuxBlend will export 2.2 if you set it to use the linear tonemapper, if not, let me know, because that is a bug).

    This info was posted earlier, but I'll repeat it:

    All of this has to do with something called "linear workflow" (you should google that). The reason we do this whole gamma correct-then-uncorrect song and dance is because your monitor isn't "linear". What that means is, if you took a graph with an input RGB value on the x-axis and on the y-axis you put how bright your monitor got in response, you don't get a straight line. You get a line the bows downward at the middle (to be exact, it forms a shape as though all the input values got raised to the power of 1/2.2). We call this a gamma curve

    This causes a problem. Rendering calculations are in linear color space (meaning they don't have that gamma curve to them). You could say they have "gamma 1.0". The problem is, you can't just display this on your monitor, because your monitor isn't linear. If you do, weird things start happening. Your image looks far too contrasty, and things that should act linearly, like brightness sliders, suddenly DON'T. A good metaphor I've heard is "your render starts acting like 2+2=5". To fix this, we have to translate the render output for display so all the math works out. Your display's gamma curve has essentially introduced an unwanted "gamma" operation, so we have to do another one in the opposite direction to get rid of it. 2+2=4 again. We call this "gamma correction". This is what the "main" or "film gamma" setting in Lux is for. You should probably leave it at 2.2. If everything works right, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GammaFunctionGraph.svg

    The line matches!

    BUUUUT......there's another problem. While basic color values might have been in linear color space, your color textures probably aren't. They're probably painted or made from photos, and already have that gamma curve baked into them, it just happened as they were made. If you just apply the gamma correction described above, your solid colors look fine, but now your textures are all washed out. So we have to turn them back into linear color space before the render starts so the math works out for textures AND solid colors. This is what the texture gamma is for. If you want your textures to look in the render as they did in the image editor, this needs to be set the same as your film gamma. Which should be 2.2. On the other hand, if you don't care about appearances so much as the actual numbers encoded in the image file, you should leave this at 1.0 and not perform the correction.


    If you're still with me, you might be wondering what that tonemapper gamma is for. Well, notice how the linear tonemapper bases its scaling factor on camera settings? Gamma correction would throw off how these settings match up to actual camera settings, so this value puts them back. It should be left at the same value as your film gamma, there is no real point to setting it otherwise.

    Wrap-up notes:

    1. Don't feel bad if this post made no sense, hardly anyone in my experience can make sense out of linear workflow the very first time it's explained to them. (i sure as hell didn't). Hit google, and just read a few different articles on it. It should start making some sense eventually. But in the meantime, know you really should leave gamma settings in Lux at 2.2.

    2. You can actually change the film gamma to something slightly above or below 2.2 if you want, it'll have the usual effect of a gamma control like in Photoshop, but with the benefit of being HDR. Although if you care about THAT, I recommend you save an EXR from Lux and do some proper post/comp in something meant for that like After Effects/Blender/Nuke/Toxik/etc

    3. Someone might try to tell you that if you have a Mac you should use gamma 1.8 instead of 2.2. This is not true and has not been true since 10.6 was released.This last post by J the Ninja really helped me to understand all this Gamma correction malarkey. ;) I have been trying to get my head around this for ages. ;)

    Some of my big reflection HDRI’s have Gamma 2.2 and some 1.0. With the 2.2 HDRI’s I simply set all Gamma Channels to 2.2 and got better results. But if I change the HDRI to one that has a Gamma of 1 what Gamma channel would I change. Obviously not the Texture Gamma. :)

    Post edited by Szark on
  • edited December 1969

    I am currently reading this thread to learn how to use this, (I am a newbie to Daz, to Luxrender and to Luxus, so it's a lot to learn xD),
    I am currently rendering a scene I am working on... of course I need to improve the lights, and stuff,
    But, can someone say what's causing the textures to look so.. weird?
    The texture on the dragon's tail seems gone, and the texture on the body seems even worse than my previous render on the standard render (can be seen here: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/19222/)
    The woman's skin seems odd, too, but I supoose this is mostly an issue with a badly illuminated scene?
    This render is currently at 60S/p, I will leave it rendering because I have to leave now, but I don't think the textures will improve much...
    Thanks for any tips!

    Parameters are pretty much the standard ones, I told it to export textures, raised gamma to 3, and the light was set as a Luxus light.

    Captura_de_Tela_2013-03-23_às_14.05_.07_.png
    1003 x 548 - 913K
  • Dumor3DDumor3D Posts: 1,316
    edited December 1969

    I'm working on a project for submission to Daz. I'm trying to include the Luxus mat settings. I'm also trying not to touch the Render settings, only what is available under the surfaces tab.

    Here are some concerns:

    1. Will the next release of Luxus have basic changes to settings such as Gamma being set to 2.2? This would have a huge effect one what I have done. :)

    2. If you can find your crystal ball.... how close do you think these base settings are to what will be in future releases?

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,634
    edited March 2013

    I am currently reading this thread to learn how to use this, (I am a newbie to Daz, to Luxrender and to Luxus, so it's a lot to learn xD),
    I am currently rendering a scene I am working on... of course I need to improve the lights, and stuff,
    But, can someone say what's causing the textures to look so.. weird?
    The texture on the dragon's tail seems gone, and the texture on the body seems even worse than my previous render on the standard render (can be seen here: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/19222/)
    The woman's skin seems odd, too, but I supoose this is mostly an issue with a badly illuminated scene?
    This render is currently at 60S/p, I will leave it rendering because I have to leave now, but I don't think the textures will improve much...
    Thanks for any tips!

    Parameters are pretty much the standard ones, I told it to export textures, raised gamma to 3, and the light was set as a Luxus light.

    look above you post and see what the Gamma setting should be...all at 2.2.

    Now we need to know what lights you have in the scene.

    You could try setting the Render settings Tone Mapping to Linear and use the Lux GUI and then you can adjest each light as you see fit.

    as for the textures select all the surfaces and go to the Option Box and choose Luxus - Luxrender Material command and then check the Copy Studio Parameters option and click Accpet.

    Post edited by Szark on
  • Salem2007Salem2007 Posts: 513
    edited March 2013

    Here's one I let cook for about 2 days--there was a lot of "flecks" hanging around for a long time in the scene that I assume were caused by bouncing light. I'm off to read pages 40 and on of this thread to see what I've been missing; what I've read so far has been really helpful!

    BTW the light cone image from Rareth looks really cool--I haven't figured out how to do volume, yet....

    mage3.jpg
    1300 x 731 - 491K
    Post edited by Salem2007 on
  • BobvanBobvan Posts: 2,613
    edited December 1969

    Pretty nice the refine brush will help with that glass noise

  • Rayman29Rayman29 Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    feck, human skin is the issue. The variables are vast, even when narrowed to few parameters.

    High praise indeed.

  • SphericLabsSphericLabs Posts: 598
    edited March 2013

    The next build, which you should get soon, will properly linearize the colors. The experts had to beat me over the head a few times, but now I understand it.

    Post edited by SphericLabs on
  • Salem2007Salem2007 Posts: 513
    edited December 1969

    I am currently reading this thread to learn how to use this, (I am a newbie to Daz, to Luxrender and to Luxus, so it's a lot to learn xD),
    I am currently rendering a scene I am working on... of course I need to improve the lights, and stuff,
    But, can someone say what's causing the textures to look so.. weird?
    The texture on the dragon's tail seems gone, and the texture on the body seems even worse than my previous render on the standard render (can be seen here: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/19222/)
    The woman's skin seems odd, too, but I supoose this is mostly an issue with a badly illuminated scene?
    This render is currently at 60S/p, I will leave it rendering because I have to leave now, but I don't think the textures will improve much...
    Thanks for any tips!

    Parameters are pretty much the standard ones, I told it to export textures, raised gamma to 3, and the light was set as a Luxus light.

    You might try lowering the gain of the lights (one at a time)--that would be my best guess (but I'm hacking around with it myself).

This discussion has been closed.