Loading...
> >

Olympia 6 Discussion and Render Thread (previously Olympia 6 Preview Thread)

1…567810

Comments

  • JabbaJabba Posts: 1,461
    edited January 2014

    The angles depend on the poses used and size of the scene, which is why people don't usually go into quite that amount of detail.

    ***edit*** - mind you, I actually learned lighting via photography long before doing anything in 3D, so there are universal principles that apply to 3D perfectly, but it can be easy to forget that not everybody will know them.

    Post edited by Jabba on
  • SickleYieldSickleYield Posts: 7,649
    edited December 1969

    Yep. And in response to an earlier query, sorry, I'm not going to do half an hour of data entry typing in the transformations. I strongly urge that you learn to use the camera view on lights in addition to the preview method, because that's what it's for.

  • TJohnTJohn Posts: 11,339
    edited January 2014

    As far as the skin color being a problem...I don't see it. Looks like a more or less natural tan. But even the way each individual's eye/brain perceives color is unique to that person.

    Barbarella.jpg
    1000 x 1250 - 277K
    Post edited by TJohn on
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    SickleYield said:
    Yep. And in response to an earlier query, sorry, I'm not going to do half an hour of data entry typing in the transformations. I strongly urge that you learn to use the camera view on lights in addition to the preview method, because that's what it's for.

    One could certainly give it a try and see what's what.

    CHEERS!

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:
    SickleYield said:

    My promos, including the Curvaceous Olympia ones, start with this setup:

    1 advanced ambient light, about 40%, radius 3 or so, centered on subject
    1 Uberenvironment light, about 15%
    1 specular-only distant light, shadows off, aimed right at subject
    1 slightly blue distant light from an angle, diffuse only, shadows OFF, turned low
    1 slightly orange distant light from an angle, diffuse only, shadows ON (one of these is the shadowcaster, which varies per scene), turned low
    1 spotlight from slightly behind and to one side of subject, usually white or yellow, shadows off, around 20% but it varies

    Then I go from there with light levels etc. depending on what sort of atmosphere I want. I could upload the preload I use, but one, it doesn't have the spotlight, and two, you'd still have to adjust everything per scene. This is not too demanding with my usual render settings, by which I mean I can do a 1000x1300 promo with no water (or postwork-only water) and maximum two hairs in it in a couple of hours usually at shading rate 0.1. That's on an Intel quad core in 3Delight.

    Thanks for that, that's really helpful,

    I'm not terribly used to positioning lights by using them like cameras, so could you possibly give me some x,y and z translation settings for those!? A lot of lighting tutorials never tell you those settings, so positioning the lights where they tell you to can often be confusing.

    Maybe, with a bit more practice, and knowledge like this, anyone with Olympia et al can make them look as good as Daz can.

    CHEERS!

    Jeremy Birn's Book [digital] Lighting and Rendering is your friend. It is up to the third edition now.

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,401
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,

    DAZ_Spooky said:
    Jeremy Birn's Book [digital] Lighting and Rendering is your friend. It is up to the third edition now.
    OT: Ah crud! My Kindle edition is 2nd Edition. What's new in the 3rd?

    -- Morgan

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Thanks guys,

    I'll have to have a look at that sometime.

    CHEERS!

  • Chris BarnesChris Barnes Posts: 67
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:
    I really like Olympia and will get her someday, like most of the G2 characters I've seen she looks really nice in the promo renders. However, Daz never include their promo lights with the figures. Most other lights I've tried on G2's are good, but, the shader settings on the G2 textures do require a fair bit of tweaking to get them looking really good.

    Outside of the Daz promos, the best lit renders I've seen of Olympia in this thread have been Sedor's, I'd love a lighting tutorial from him, and wouldn't we all!?

    CHEERS!

    Daz_Jared made this tutorial here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msw2KyQBlug

    I followed it and was able to recreate the Gia 6 promos almost exactly. The Olympia promos look like they follow pretty much the same method.

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Cypherfox said:
    Greetings,
    DAZ_Spooky said:
    Jeremy Birn's Book [digital] Lighting and Rendering is your friend. It is up to the third edition now.
    OT: Ah crud! My Kindle edition is 2nd Edition. What's new in the 3rd?

    -- Morgan
    I haven't bought the third edition yet either. The Second Edition is still sitting next to my home computer, where it is referenced often. LOL

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Chris Barnes said:

    Daz_Jared made this tutorial here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msw2KyQBlug

    I followed it and was able to recreate the Gia 6 promos almost exactly. The Olympia promos look like they follow pretty much the same method.

    Thanks for that,

    The thing I find with video tutorials is that it's tough to pause just the right bit when you have DS open and are trying to follow it. You don't have to pause books or pdf's and you can follow them at your own pace.

    This is why I'd like a written tutorial to tell us what is what

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited January 2014

    For those that think Olympia's skin looks a funny colour, try changing the gamma setting in your render settings to 2.00 and then adjust the intensity of the lights.

    CHEERS!

    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    For those that think Olympia looks a funny colour, try changing the gamma setting in your render settings to 2.00 and then adjust the intensity of the lights.

    CHEERS!

    Note that 2.2 is the correct setting for virtually all monitors, both Windows and Mac. (Mac used to be different.)
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Yeah, that it is, one of my renders looked a bit washed out when I set it to that, but it looked just right at 2.00. Funny how DS defaults to 1.00. Still, I'll try 2.2 in another and see how that looks.

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Yep, looks fine to me, ok, 2.20 it is then!

    It makes a heck of a lot of difference to renders!

    CHEERS!

  • SnowSultanSnowSultan Posts: 3,773
    edited December 1969

    Whoa whoa whoa...changing Gamma to 2.20 does completely change how Olympia looks indeed - but is this a standard setting that all other materials should be based on too? What is "correct" now? Our monitors calibrated or eyeballed to look correct with Studio's Gamma at 1.00 by default, or should we be setting all of our lights and materials based on that 2.20 setting?

    I'm probably still sticking with my preferred method; find a professional's photo or render and just assume he or she has their settings right. ;)

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited January 2014

    SnowSultan said:
    Whoa whoa whoa...changing Gamma to 2.20 does completely change how Olympia looks indeed - but is this a standard setting that all other materials should be based on too? What is "correct" now? Our monitors calibrated or eyeballed to look correct with Studio's Gamma at 1.00 by default, or should we be setting all of our lights and materials based on that 2.20 setting?

    I'm probably still sticking with my preferred method; find a professional's photo or render and just assume he or she has their settings right. ;)

    In General: for monitor viewing, then 2.2 is correct. For print 1 is correct. If you intend to take it into a program for postwork then usually off is correct and the gamma correction is applied in the Postwork application. (If I recall correctly.)

    Note this is not DS specific, but also applies to Carrara, Poser and, in general to any image producing software.

    Post edited by DAZ_Spooky on
  • SnowSultanSnowSultan Posts: 3,773
    edited December 1969

    Now I would really like to see some official DAZ renders of figures with the gamma set to 2.20 and 1.00 for us to compare with our own monitors and brightness settings. On my screen, which I've spent some time working on to hopefully look 'correct', Olympia is completely washed out at 2.20 - flesh colored, yes, but extremely pale and nothing at all like the orange default look she has at gamma 1.00.

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    SnowSultan said:
    Now I would really like to see some official DAZ renders of figures with the gamma set to 2.20 and 1.00 for us to compare with our own monitors and brightness settings. On my screen, which I've spent some time working on to hopefully look 'correct', Olympia is completely washed out at 2.20 - flesh colored, yes, but extremely pale and nothing at all like the orange default look she has at gamma 1.00.

    Use what you feel looks best. It is your art, that doesn't change what Gamma Correction is.

    Gamma Correction is not specific to DAZ Studio, or any piece of software, it is hardware related and should give you the same image, when properly set, that you get from print.

    http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/color/gamma_correction/gamma_intro.html is the SIGGRAPH explanation (though it is a bit out of date with the values)

    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/gamma-correction.htm is more up to date.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 107,889
    edited December 1969

    Well, you wouldn't use the same lighting for a gamma 2.2 and a gamma 1 image.

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Richard Haseltine said:
    Well, you wouldn't use the same lighting for a gamma 2.2 and a gamma 1 image.
    Absolutely correct.
  • SnowSultanSnowSultan Posts: 3,773
    edited January 2014

    I guess setting Studio's Gamma to 2.2 could be a way to brighten an image to what's considered universally 'normal' without any postwork and without raising light intensity to where it could wash out the picture then. Do you happen to know if DAZ's figures' materials are created using the 2.2 Gamma setting though?

    Post edited by SnowSultan on
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited January 2014

    Well, the textures aren't always created in DS, there are other 3rd party programs that are used for texture painting, so I 'm not entirely sure. To my mind, when using 2.20 in DS, the skin on the textures looks more like the reference photos you see on sites like 3D.SK. They use very even lighting.

    CHEERS!

    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • KhoryKhory Posts: 3,854
    edited December 1969

    Don't forget that different people will see different results depending on how/if they have their monitored calibrated.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    I guess that is still true, though I thought that applied more to CRT than it did to later types. Probably still applies now though, I've never really looked into it since I've had laptops.

    CHEERS!

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Khory said:
    Don't forget that different people will see different results depending on how/if they have their monitored calibrated. Correct. Though properly calibrated, (the way they are supposed to be calibrated and the way current monitors are factory calibrated) it is 2.2. Yes you can calibrate your monitor to get it to the correct setting.

    Well, the textures aren’t always created in DS, there are other 3rd party programs that are used for texture painting, so I ‘m not entirely sure. To my mind, when using 2.20 in DS, the skin on the textures looks more like the reference photos you see on sites like 3D.SK. They use very even lighting.

    CHEERS!

    Since DAZ Studio can not create textures, except through baking, in the first place... :) Sorry I couldn't resist.

    Shaders are likely to have been created using whatever the artist decided looked good on their machine.

    Like lighting, Gamma changes may require adjustment to shaders for best look. This is especially true of older sets created when DS set Gamma Incorrectly.

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    SnowSultan said:
    I guess setting Studio's Gamma to 2.2 could be a way to brighten an image to what's considered universally 'normal' without any postwork and without raising light intensity to where it could wash out the picture then. Do you happen to know if DAZ's figures' materials are created using the 2.2 Gamma setting though?
    It is to make the screen image appear to the eye the same way the scene would appear to the eye in the real world or if it is Printed.
  • SnowSultanSnowSultan Posts: 3,773
    edited December 1969

    Thanks Spooky. I don't pretend to understand now, so I'm going to go back to looking at a render by Hellboy or Joelegecko and postworking my renders until they're about as bright as theirs. ;)

  • SickleYieldSickleYield Posts: 7,649
    edited December 1969

    SnowSultan said:
    Thanks Spooky. I don't pretend to understand now, so I'm going to go back to looking at a render by Hellboy or Joelegecko and postworking my renders until they're about as bright as theirs. ;)

    I've noticed a distinct difference between how things look on my main's monitor and my laptop, and the laptop seems closer to everyone else's because when things look correct on it they seem to look right to the testers as well. I end up doing brightness/contrast postwork for this reason a lot.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    DAZ_Spooky said:

    Since DAZ Studio can not create textures, except through baking, in the first place... :) Sorry I couldn't resist.

    Shaders are likely to have been created using whatever the artist decided looked good on their machine.

    Like lighting, Gamma changes may require adjustment to shaders for best look. This is especially true of older sets created when DS set Gamma Incorrectly.

    LOL, so true! Well, in answer to Khory, I suppose it could depend on which program the artist used to create the textures. Deep Paint is supposed to give good results.

    CHEERS!

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    SnowSultan said:
    Thanks Spooky. I don't pretend to understand now, so I'm going to go back to looking at a render by Hellboy or Joelegecko and postworking my renders until they're about as bright as theirs. ;)
    LOL

    Basically it is designed to compensate for the way a Monitor applies power (and color) to the screen. It should be a set it once and forget it setting, not used as a poor substitute for Global Illumination. :)

    That is the technical aspect of it.

    Now since Art is only slightly technical.... Render what you believe looks right.

Sign In or Register to comment.