Luxus discussion

14445464850

Comments

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,570
    edited December 1969

    Yeah I think it would do it justice leaving it render as long as you can.

  • ReilanT 3D pictureReilanT 3D picture Posts: 11
    edited December 1969

    A little Questions, i make an Exterior render with LuxeRenderand i have a good result. ( First image)

    i use Daz Luxus sun and Sky 2, and 3 hours of rendering. i'm happy for the result.

    But when i make a interior Scene after 5 hours of rendering i dont have a good result i use sun and Sky2 for make a sun effect over a windows. but the picture with 832 S/p stay pixelised :(.

    for intérior scene i need to make my own luxus spotlight or Diffuse ?? some advice or Trick for me ?

    Week_end_to_Olympus_luxus_Final.jpg
    1134 x 907 - 959K
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    A little Questions, i make an Exterior render with LuxeRenderand i have a good result. ( First image)

    i use Daz Luxus sun and Sky 2, and 3 hours of rendering. i'm happy for the result.

    But when i make a interior Scene after 5 hours of rendering i dont have a good result i use sun and Sky2 for make a sun effect over a windows. but the picture with 832 S/p stay pixelised :(.

    for intérior scene i need to make my own luxus spotlight or Diffuse ?? some advice or Trick for me ?


    First of all, that really is a great outdoor render. I can't believe you got such great results after 3 hours with all of those characters and props in there. Great job!

    As for the interior scene, the reason it is taking longer and still having noise is because the enclosed space is causing the light rays to bounce around over and over again. Outside, the rays bounce off objects, then shoot off into the sky and disappear. Rendering inside with a sun light is going to cause the long render issues. I did the same thing with a render awhile ago and stopped it after 10 hours or so, deciding to just be happy with the results I had. There are solutions, however.

    If the reason you have a sun/sky in the scene is just to light the scene outside the windows, I would recommend that you delete that light set. Set up area lights inside to light your interior and consider putting the exterior into the picture with post work in Photoshop or another external program. If you decide to do this, make sure you turn "On" the Pre Multiply Alpha option in the render settings in Daz Studio and save the file as .png

    If you do not want to add exterior during post work, you will just have to endure the long render times. I still haven't found a solution in Luxus to reduce render times for exteriors out of windows. In other software, such as Blender, LuxRender provides capability for "portals" which direct your outside lights to render only the areas where you put the portal, which would be in front of windows and open doorways. Luxus does not provide this function yet. Good Luck! If you find a solution before I do, please share it with me. I would like to render a scene as you are describing.

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    Misfire said:
    Is there a way to create LuxRender light portals with Luxus? I was thinking that one could convert a plane primitive to do this, but I'm not sure how, or whether that's even an option at present.

    I would need to add an option to do this. Probably will be a "Luxus - LuxRender Portal" that would turn any selected surfaces into portal.

    Any updates on this project? I am anxious to try portals.

  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    First render using Glossy translucent and volume to simulate sub surface scattering, hope you like it.
    Dublin for Victoria 4
    Infinity cove 2
    Pepper hair (glossy translucent with deep blue absorption to bring out the yellow)
    1 medium sized mesh light

    Rendered in LuxRender v1.3 beta to 2.85k samples, 12.08 hours.

    dublin.jpg
    1415 x 2000 - 398K
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    First render using Glossy translucent and volume to simulate sub surface scattering, hope you like it.
    Dublin for Victoria 4
    Infinity cove 2
    Pepper hair (glossy translucent with deep blue absorption to bring out the yellow)
    1 medium sized mesh light

    Rendered in LuxRender v1.3 beta to 2.85k samples, 12.08 hours.

    She came out great, Michael. There are a lot of details I really like, but I am mostly drawn to her hand. It's beautiful, delicate. The nails have just the right amount of translucent quality to them, and the Goldilocks shadow is perfect. (Goldilocks, as in not too soft, not too hard, just right).

  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Slosh said:
    Michael_G said:
    First render using Glossy translucent and volume to simulate sub surface scattering, hope you like it.
    Dublin for Victoria 4
    Infinity cove 2
    Pepper hair (glossy translucent with deep blue absorption to bring out the yellow)
    1 medium sized mesh light

    Rendered in LuxRender v1.3 beta to 2.85k samples, 12.08 hours.

    She came out great, Michael. There are a lot of details I really like, but I am mostly drawn to her hand. It's beautiful, delicate. The nails have just the right amount of translucent quality to them, and the Goldilocks shadow is perfect. (Goldilocks, as in not too soft, not too hard, just right).

    Thats one way to describe a shadow I guess :D thanks for the nice comments.

  • CzexanaCzexana Posts: 167
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    First render using Glossy translucent and volume to simulate sub surface scattering, hope you like it.
    Dublin for Victoria 4
    Infinity cove 2
    Pepper hair (glossy translucent with deep blue absorption to bring out the yellow)
    1 medium sized mesh light

    Rendered in LuxRender v1.3 beta to 2.85k samples, 12.08 hours.

    Beautiful image - and that skin has great lustre and translucency.

    Would you mind sharing the settings you finally used for this skin? I seem to remember Dublin has a very fair skin and it would be good to see what settings worked for that.

    :coolsmile:

  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Yes of course, a fair skin was what I was aiming for but it still has a lot of pink in it.

    settings_2.jpg
    509 x 785 - 129K
    settings_1.jpg
    508 x 763 - 130K
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    Yes of course, a fair skin was what I was aiming for but it still has a lot of pink in it.

    Thanks, Michael! I want to try this, too. Biggest reason I haven't posted any female renders is because I haven't taken the time to try paler skin tones. Much easier to make a tan man, I think.

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    For some reason, I thought I already posted this here but I am getting confused by all the Luxus threads. This started from the same project as my picture on previous page, but I added some scene elements and different lighting, then tweaked the heck out of the material. This time I rendered with the metropolitan sampler. It still only took 3 1/2 hours, which means I am learning to be efficient with my lighting.

    Sean_Fire_Metropolis.png
    750 x 1000 - 1M
  • Michael GMichael G Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Looks good slosh, what kind of hardware are you rendering with? and are using a GPU?

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited April 2013

    Michael_G said:
    First render using Glossy translucent and volume to simulate sub surface scattering, hope you like it.
    Dublin for Victoria 4
    Infinity cove 2
    Pepper hair (glossy translucent with deep blue absorption to bring out the yellow)
    1 medium sized mesh light

    Rendered in LuxRender v1.3 beta to 2.85k samples, 12.08 hours.

    Very nice. Would consider brushing in some hair along the hairline in post though as the edge seems to float above the scalp. I was wondering what Dublin might look like in Lux/Octane, ty for posting :)

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited December 1969

    Slosh said:
    For some reason, I thought I already posted this here but I am getting confused by all the Luxus threads. This started from the same project as my picture on previous page, but I added some scene elements and different lighting, then tweaked the heck out of the material. This time I rendered with the metropolitan sampler. It still only took 3 1/2 hours, which means I am learning to be efficient with my lighting.

    Very nice image, and great time.

    The left foot in front there's no ambient occlusion around the front of the foot which leaves it separate from the surface. A slight touchup in post adding slight band of light shadow around the front of the foot would probably help it blend in with the surface better. Other than that, it's very realistic :)

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    Michael_G said:
    Looks good slosh, what kind of hardware are you rendering with? and are using a GPU?

    I have a dual core HP machine with 4G RAM, onboard Intel graphics. Not a beast by any means, but it has served me well. Not using a GPU since my hardware does not support it.

    Gedd said:
    For some reason, I thought I already posted this here but I am getting confused by all the Luxus threads. This started from the same project as my picture on previous page, but I added some scene elements and different lighting, then tweaked the heck out of the material. This time I rendered with the metropolitan sampler. It still only took 3 1/2 hours, which means I am learning to be efficient with my lighting.

    Very nice image, and great time.

    The left foot in front there's no ambient occlusion around the front of the foot which leaves it separate from the surface. A slight touchup in post adding slight band of light shadow around the front of the foot would probably help it blend in with the surface better. Other than that, it's very realistic :)

    I noticed that, too. My first thought was that his toes are bent up a bit, but then there would be a cast shadow, wouldn't there? I don't suppose there is a setting for the ambient occlusion trace depth? I haven't noticed one. Are we not doing postwork for these renders? I assumed we were not, and felt bad about the fact that I actually toned down the white in his eyes in PS. I didn't do anything else to the image. I think I could really spice it up with some post. Another thing I don't like about it is the clothes. I still haven't been able to get decent results with the cloth material so I went with another material. And choosing black was a big mistake. The textures are very black and no amount of adjustments would lighten them with the exception of increasing spec and/or GTA, which then made them look really fake.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited December 1969

    Slosh said:
    Are we not doing postwork for these renders? I assumed we were not, and felt bad about the fact that I actually toned down the white in his eyes in PS. I didn't do anything else to the image. I think I could really spice it up with some post. Another thing I don't like about it is the clothes. I still haven't been able to get decent results with the cloth material so I went with another material. And choosing black was a big mistake. The textures are very black and no amount of adjustments would lighten them with the exception of increasing spec and/or GTA, which then made them look really fake.

    Well ofc there are going to be a firestorm of opinions on that topic always, but for my part, since this isn't a competition I would tend to consider post ok with a before/after explaining what was fixed and why, since it would only highlight areas people are having with the base render and possibly bring to the forefront discussions on other ways to approach it without post. Plus, discussions on when post is the most efficient fix vs not is always helpful imo.

  • CzexanaCzexana Posts: 167
    edited December 1969

    Slosh said:
    Michael_G said:
    Looks good slosh, what kind of hardware are you rendering with? and are using a GPU?

    I have a dual core HP machine with 4G RAM, onboard Intel graphics. Not a beast by any means, but it has served me well. Not using a GPU since my hardware does not support it.

    Gedd said:
    For some reason, I thought I already posted this here but I am getting confused by all the Luxus threads. This started from the same project as my picture on previous page, but I added some scene elements and different lighting, then tweaked the heck out of the material. This time I rendered with the metropolitan sampler. It still only took 3 1/2 hours, which means I am learning to be efficient with my lighting.

    Very nice image, and great time.

    The left foot in front there's no ambient occlusion around the front of the foot which leaves it separate from the surface. A slight touchup in post adding slight band of light shadow around the front of the foot would probably help it blend in with the surface better. Other than that, it's very realistic :)

    I noticed that, too. My first thought was that his toes are bent up a bit, but then there would be a cast shadow, wouldn't there? I don't suppose there is a setting for the ambient occlusion trace depth? I haven't noticed one. Are we not doing postwork for these renders? I assumed we were not, and felt bad about the fact that I actually toned down the white in his eyes in PS. I didn't do anything else to the image. I think I could really spice it up with some post. Another thing I don't like about it is the clothes. I still haven't been able to get decent results with the cloth material so I went with another material. And choosing black was a big mistake. The textures are very black and no amount of adjustments would lighten them with the exception of increasing spec and/or GTA, which then made them look really fake.

    The lack of shadow from his left toes looks right to me. The main front light is shining almost exactly from the direction the foot is pointing, and quite low, so no shadow from that. The light behind him is blocked by his body and right leg from casting a shadow from the left foot, so no distinct shadow there. Also, the dark clothing is not going to give any significant indirect bounce light, so no 'occlusion' shadow is going to appear.

    So a very nice image and, in this case, the lack of shadow is realistic. :coolsmile:

    PS: I think there may be something slightly off with his posture - maybe it's just the angle or the dark clothes, but with his back that vertical I think the feet are a little too far forward to be under his centre of balance. He's likely to topple over backwards. :-)

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited April 2013

    Well from my experience in photography (which is only put out there not as authoritative, but rather as not totally out of nowhere) there is some slight shadow even in cases like this, it is subtle, but it is there and it is what keeps things from looking like they 'float' above the surface.

    As for his posture, to me it indicates he is in good shape. If he wasn't, I agree.. he would topple over but this pose is actually pretty comfortable if in very good shape. I used to take this pose when I was younger. I would even go so far as to say it's a good example of how much one can show with something as simple as a (subtle) pose, that is... the characters excellent physical condition in this case. I happen to like how it is subtle in doing so.

    So many poses showing someone being athletic is very out there, which isn't bad... but it takes some creativity to do so subtly. It also indicates some tension (which is good in this case) as one isn't going to hold this pose for a long time even when in good shape. It is typically a transitional pose... one that one holds for a period of minutes at most typically before going to another. This type of pose hides a bit of action in a still image. (It imbues some subtle energy into the image.)

    For me, the pose is one of the great things about this image, second only to the overall quality with such a quick render for Lux.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • CzexanaCzexana Posts: 167
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Well from my experience in photography (which is only put out there not as authoritative, but rather as not totally out of nowhere) there is some slight shadow even in cases like this, it is subtle, but it is there and it is what keeps things from looking like they 'float' above the surface.

    As for his posture, to me it indicates he is in good shape. If he wasn't, I agree.. he would topple over but this pose is actually pretty comfortable if in very good shape. I used to take this pose when I was younger. I would even go so far as to say it's a good example of how much one can show with something as simple as a (subtle) pose, that is... the characters excellent physical condition in this case. I happen to like how it is subtle in doing so.

    So many poses showing someone being athletic is very out there, which isn't bad... but it takes some creativity to do so subtly. It also indicates some tension (which is good in this case) as one isn't going to hold this pose for a long time even when in good shape. It is typically a transitional pose... one that one holds for a period of minutes at most typically before going to another. This type of pose hides a bit of action in a still image. (It imbues some subtle energy into the image.)

    For me, the pose is one of the great things about this image, second only to the overall quality with such a quick render for Lux.

    Looking closely at the small toes on the left foot, they may be penetrating the floor a fraction, removing the overhang where a shadow could form.

    As for the pose - artisticly, I agree it's a great pose showing tension in the lower body and relaxation in the arms and torso.

    I certainly can't hold that pose without a wall behind me, with my back that vertical. And with about 80% of my weight on the ball of my right foot, my right knee doesn't last long at that angle anyway these days. :-P :coolsmile:

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    I so wish I could take credit for the pose, but it is one that came with Fashion Poses for David 5. The only thing I did was adjust his head position a little so he would be looking into the camera more. The balance may look a bit off, czexana, because I tilted the camera. And you are right about the toes penetrating the floor. I have displacement happening on the floor, so I had to manually raise David off the ground, render to see displacement, move him some more, render again, etc. It is entirely possible that I did not get him placed very well.

    Definitely going to work on rendering darker clothing. This is just too black for my taste. I received a PM about possible calibration on my monitor. Does anyone else, besides the PM'er, think that my images render a bit on the dark side? Granted, this particular scene is not meant to be very bright overall, but we all know the difference between a dimly lit scene and a scene that was lit wrong because the artist's monitor was not calibrated properly.

    I would definitely appreciate an answer on this last question. If you need more examples, please check out my dA gallery (and no, this is not a shameless plug to get you to check out my sparsely populated gallery).

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited April 2013

    No it does not look to dark to me, using an apple 22" ... was calibrated at one time. As for placing, I will select the foot and zoom to selected to pose them properly myself. I also tend to use reflective surfaces to test against for that also.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited April 2013

    Gedd said:
    No it does not look to dark to me, using an apple 22" ... was calibrated at one time. As for placing, I will select the foot and zoom to selected to pose them properly myself. I also tend to use reflective surfaces to test against for that also.

    Yeah, they look okay when viewed on my iPad as well. I just wondered, since it was pointed out to me, and I know that monitor calibration plays a big part in what you are trying to achieve when lighting your scene.

    I don't understand what you mean about using reflective surfaces to test... do you mean that you can see the alignment better when there is a reflection under the foot? Makes sense, but it is really hard to do when you have displacement going on the floor, since it doesn't displace until render time. This particular alignment took me about 6 tries to get "right". I was always either floating or sinking.

    Post edited by Slosh on
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 9,576
    edited December 1969

    My monitor is set to being quite dark (easier on the eyes) and your picture is absolutely fine and not too dark.

  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    Kerya said:
    My monitor is set to being quite dark (easier on the eyes) and your picture is absolutely fine and not too dark.

    Thanks for the reply, Kerya. I think it's all okay, just wanted to make sure.

  • edited December 1969

    Was playing around with both luxus and the old age morphs and this is what I got.

    d68.png
    1080 x 864 - 566K
  • revenger681revenger681 Posts: 155
    edited December 1969

    I love this plugin. It stays out of my way and lets me focus on what I want to do, which is to create fun renders. I don’t care about mathematical light scatter theory or detailed explanations of what different surface types mean to the physical laws of nature. I speak this language: Less shiny. More shiny. Okay that’s pretty…. Luxus allows me to think the way I think and then it goes off in the background and stays quiet.

    I’ll leave you with some of my own renders in progress. These were done in LuxRender via the Luxus plugin.

    This is the reason I'm considering getting Luxus in addition to Reality. Reality is easy enough, but there is still quite a few things that leave me scratching my head at times. I think the same was as this poster, not in mathmatical or complicated scientific terms explaining light... but more like "too bright! Too shiney! too dull!", etc.

    There is one other aspect that has me hesitant to buying luxus, and that's general questions, concerns and just "wtf is that setting?" type of stuff. The creator of Reality is on Twitter, his official site's forums, and has contact information on his web-site. He has always replied to me when I've had a question, big or small. I've never gotten the typical "please contact DAZ support (insert any other source as well... Such as "contact the author of the clothing, etc). He's always asked what's wrong, and given me advice, his private forums are very active as well and his YouTube video has a plethora of tutorials. If I buy Luxus.... Am I stuck with the DAZ forums? Does the author have his own support site with goodies, advice, tips and etc? The store page here is your typical product page with no author contact information (official product page (as in HIS page with his work, not the store page to buy it, etc.).

  • SphericLabsSphericLabs Posts: 598
    edited December 1969

    I love this plugin. It stays out of my way and lets me focus on what I want to do, which is to create fun renders. I don’t care about mathematical light scatter theory or detailed explanations of what different surface types mean to the physical laws of nature. I speak this language: Less shiny. More shiny. Okay that’s pretty…. Luxus allows me to think the way I think and then it goes off in the background and stays quiet.

    I’ll leave you with some of my own renders in progress. These were done in LuxRender via the Luxus plugin.

    This is the reason I'm considering getting Luxus in addition to Reality. Reality is easy enough, but there is still quite a few things that leave me scratching my head at times. I think the same was as this poster, not in mathmatical or complicated scientific terms explaining light... but more like "too bright! Too shiney! too dull!", etc.

    There is one other aspect that has me hesitant to buying luxus, and that's general questions, concerns and just "wtf is that setting?" type of stuff. The creator of Reality is on Twitter, his official site's forums, and has contact information on his web-site. He has always replied to me when I've had a question, big or small. I've never gotten the typical "please contact DAZ support (insert any other source as well... Such as "contact the author of the clothing, etc). He's always asked what's wrong, and given me advice, his private forums are very active as well and his YouTube video has a plethora of tutorials. If I buy Luxus.... Am I stuck with the DAZ forums? Does the author have his own support site with goodies, advice, tips and etc? The store page here is your typical product page with no author contact information (official product page (as in HIS page with his work, not the store page to buy it, etc.).

    I don't have much of a website, but I try to answer questions here as best I can.

  • revenger681revenger681 Posts: 155
    edited December 1969

    Loveicy said:
    I am still trying to learn to use Reality 2.5 with no luck :( So how easy was it for you to use this new plugin?

    I've got the same question as well. I love reality and have done some small bits of work, but I'm having a tough time figuring it out. This product now has my attention. However, I do LOVE the support I've gotten from Reality
  • SloshSlosh Posts: 2,377
    edited December 1969

    Product support is a big consideration before purchase, especially for a plug-in. I haven't found a website for Spheric yet (he's the go-to guy, not sure if he is actually the Luxus creator or not), but he visits this forum and particularly this thread constantly. So far, I haven't noticed any delay for answers when they are asked. I'm pretty sure he would answer questions privately, as well. Seems like a really good guy.

    That being said, even without an "official" Luxus forum or website, there seems to be plenty of help and advice on the DAZ forums. I have only had Luxus for about 3 weeks, and I have found that it does a very good job with porting to LuxRender, the controls are very "DAZ-like", so any DS user should be able to pick up the settings relatively quickly. Of course, Luxus is not DAZ Studio, so there are settings that are new, but explanations are easy to come by and folks seem to enjoy explaining what they do.

    I haven't rendered in 3delight since I started using Luxus. I am getting really good results and learning more every day. Click on some of the links in my signature and you can see some examples after only 3 weeks.

  • dtammdtamm Posts: 126
    edited April 2013

    Luxus is cool

    Post edited by dtamm on
This discussion has been closed.