Post Your Renders - Happy New Year yall

Dartanbeck

Right. I don't "Always" use it. 

All of the new PBR and PBR-like engines I've seen apply GC = 2.2 as their default. Luxrender and LuxCore, Iray, and a few others - probably all of them. It's part of their magic.

magaremoto

TangoAlpha said:

magaremoto said:

yes, great addition by developers indeed, like many other useful functions making of carrara a still alive tool; about the gamma 2.2 mantra, I would point out that most of the textures of the real world are being shot with a digital camera and therefore they have already a 2.2 gamma correction applied. This means that textures colors may be Gamma corrected twice. That's why images using photo textures may look washed out sometimes. As usual it's up to artists  tweak gamma correction accordingly or "de-gamma" textures as well

Very true. In my current wip, one wall would always render "bleached" in DS, even though it looked perfectly fine rendered in Carrara. I spend ages trying to figure out why, until someone suggested gamma. That was the one texture in the project sourced from a 3rd party photographt site, and sure enough after it was de-gamma'd it rendered fine.

I guess this demonstrates why there are 2 flowers for the included textures within daz products, one for iray and one for 3delight; all unbiased renderers apply gamma to imported textures or have native shaders prepared for

magaremoto

Dartanbeck said:

Yeah, when I was talking earlier about the 'even-ness' of some of the real-world style lighting/rendering, I didn't mean it as a bad thing.

In my recent studies, however, it has been getting emphasized that in the world of visual effects, it's best to not bust ones hump trying to recreate reality within a scene - but to make it believeable and intersting without too much effort. GI and IL are perfect for that, as they can be quickly set up - but they can be much more tricky if it comes to having to make very specific changes.

totally agreed

 

TangoAlpha

magaremoto said:

TangoAlpha said:

magaremoto said:

yes, great addition by developers indeed, like many other useful functions making of carrara a still alive tool; about the gamma 2.2 mantra, I would point out that most of the textures of the real world are being shot with a digital camera and therefore they have already a 2.2 gamma correction applied. This means that textures colors may be Gamma corrected twice. That's why images using photo textures may look washed out sometimes. As usual it's up to artists  tweak gamma correction accordingly or "de-gamma" textures as well

Very true. In my current wip, one wall would always render "bleached" in DS, even though it looked perfectly fine rendered in Carrara. I spend ages trying to figure out why, until someone suggested gamma. That was the one texture in the project sourced from a 3rd party photographt site, and sure enough after it was de-gamma'd it rendered fine.

I guess this demonstrates why there are 2 flowers for the included textures within daz products, one for iray and one for 3delight; all unbiased renderers apply gamma to imported textures or have native shaders prepared for

Not sure about that. In my case the difference was between DS (either flavour) and Carrara. Iray and 3DL both bleached the texture.

magaremoto

maybe gamma correction is being applied by default when loading, could be interesting to know more about that

PhilW

magaremoto said:

yes, great addition by developers indeed, like many other useful functions making of carrara a still alive tool; about the gamma 2.2 mantra, I would point out that most of the textures of the real world are being shot with a digital camera and therefore they have already a 2.2 gamma correction applied. This means that textures colors may be Gamma corrected twice. That's why images using photo textures may look washed out sometimes. As usual it's up to artists  tweak gamma correction accordingly or "de-gamma" textures as well

Sorry to "correct" you (!), but Carrara's Gamma Correction automatically "de-gammas" image maps before doing the lighting calculations and then applies gamma correction to the resulting render, so there is no need to manually de-gamma an image used as a map (and they are not having gamma applied twice).  There are exceptions - the hair shader and backdrops and non-HDRI backgrounds, and I discuss ways to address these in the Realism Rendering course.  I have generally found that textures really "pop" when using Gamma of 2.2 in a way that I had not seen without gamma correction.

MarkIsSleepy

TangoAlpha said:

magaremoto said:

yes, great addition by developers indeed, like many other useful functions making of carrara a still alive tool; about the gamma 2.2 mantra, I would point out that most of the textures of the real world are being shot with a digital camera and therefore they have already a 2.2 gamma correction applied. This means that textures colors may be Gamma corrected twice. That's why images using photo textures may look washed out sometimes. As usual it's up to artists  tweak gamma correction accordingly or "de-gamma" textures as well

Very true. In my current wip, one wall would always render "bleached" in DS, even though it looked perfectly fine rendered in Carrara. I spend ages trying to figure out why, until someone suggested gamma. That was the one texture in the project sourced from a 3rd party photographt site, and sure enough after it was de-gamma'd it rendered fine.

Another place to be aware of this is if you are using FilterForge to generate any of your textures - by default a gamma of 2.2 is applied to those as well, so if you are planning on using those textures in an image, you need to remember to turn it off in FilterForge before saving the texture.

PhilW

MDO2010 said:

TangoAlpha said:

magaremoto said:

yes, great addition by developers indeed, like many other useful functions making of carrara a still alive tool; about the gamma 2.2 mantra, I would point out that most of the textures of the real world are being shot with a digital camera and therefore they have already a 2.2 gamma correction applied. This means that textures colors may be Gamma corrected twice. That's why images using photo textures may look washed out sometimes. As usual it's up to artists  tweak gamma correction accordingly or "de-gamma" textures as well

Very true. In my current wip, one wall would always render "bleached" in DS, even though it looked perfectly fine rendered in Carrara. I spend ages trying to figure out why, until someone suggested gamma. That was the one texture in the project sourced from a 3rd party photographt site, and sure enough after it was de-gamma'd it rendered fine.

Another place to be aware of this is if you are using FilterForge to generate any of your textures - by default a gamma of 2.2 is applied to those as well, so if you are planning on using those textures in an image, you need to remember to turn it off in FilterForge before saving the texture.

I just did a quick test with flat lighting and in Carrara, the image texture renders the same in Carrara whether gamma correction is applied or not - so with gamma correction applied the image is de-gamma'ed, the lighting calculations performed, and then gamma applied to the resulting image.  This is as it should be.  In DS, the texture looked more washed out, particularly the lighter colours and shades.  So I would say that you do not need to adjust texture maps for Carrara, but you may need to for DS.

I suppose the reverse of that is that if texture maps are pre-adjusted for DS - as in Genesis (& G2) characters for example - then they may be a little dark when used in Carrara? Just thinking out loud, I have not noticed any major issues to be honest.

TangoAlpha

That explains why my map didn't need to be de-gamma'd in Carrara even though it did in DS. (Phil, it's the stone frontage texture...)

magaremoto

PhilW said:

magaremoto said:

yes, great addition by developers indeed, like many other useful functions making of carrara a still alive tool; about the gamma 2.2 mantra, I would point out that most of the textures of the real world are being shot with a digital camera and therefore they have already a 2.2 gamma correction applied. This means that textures colors may be Gamma corrected twice. That's why images using photo textures may look washed out sometimes. As usual it's up to artists  tweak gamma correction accordingly or "de-gamma" textures as well

Sorry to "correct" you (!), but Carrara's Gamma Correction automatically "de-gammas" image maps before doing the lighting calculations and then applies gamma correction to the resulting render, so there is no need to manually de-gamma an image used as a map (and they are not having gamma applied twice).  There are exceptions - the hair shader and backdrops and non-HDRI backgrounds, and I discuss ways to address these in the Realism Rendering course.  I have generally found that textures really "pop" when using Gamma of 2.2 in a way that I had not seen without gamma correction.

yes, but I noticed when needed to blend textures (particularly noticeable with reflection maps) the buffer within carrara doesn't convert them to linear space as it should be, so when gamma is applied the color value is being modified, with a washed out effect; anyway I don't know much about this subject, so ubi maior minor cessat

PhilW

Maybe reflection maps are not corrected, the maps in the color channel definitely are.

magaremoto

not sure about that, if I recall correctly I have had issues with brown skin and dark wood textures with gamma >1.8 but maybe I'm wrong

Dartanbeck

magaremoto said:

maybe gamma correction is being applied by default when loading, could be interesting to know more about that

It's found in their settings and allow for change, if wanted. But every one of them are set at Gamma Correction at 2.2  -  all of them.

Dartanbeck

Awesome render, Phil!

magaremoto

no preclusion towards 2.2 gamma DB, don't get me wrong, but I consider it only an usable digit on the slider.  The purpose of gamma correction stratagem, that is to say convert linear images as produced by the rendering engine into tones and colors suitable to our eyes, can be "approached" in other ways; lately I'm intrigued in how a participating medium like air or haze may have influence on shaded surfaces by interacting with them; strangely enough light absorption or scattering through the medium give results perceived from eyes very similar to a gamma correction; another way can be understanding how soft and blurred shadows from the environment can affect lit or shaded surfaces in a way the eye may consider likely. Both are conceptually linked together and are related to the radiated fluid which we live in.

Anyway theoretically a render may looks good even without gamma correction, because has already been corrected with a lot of texture and lights tweaking, gamma correction improves the artist workflow and produces results visually correct.

magaremoto

Dartanbeck said:

Awesome render, Phil!

ditto

skin, hair and teeth above all

WendyLuvsCatz

I love the hair in FF cutscenes

Dartanbeck

magaremoto said:

no preclusion towards 2.2 gamma DB, don't get me wrong, but I consider it only an usable digit on the slider.  The purpose of gamma correction stratagem, that is to say convert linear images as produced by the rendering engine into tones and colors suitable to our eyes, can be "approached" in other ways; lately I'm intrigued in how a participating medium like air or haze may have influence on shaded surfaces by interacting with them; strangely enough light absorption or scattering through the medium give results perceived from eyes very similar to a gamma correction; another way can be understanding how soft and blurred shadows from the environment can affect lit or shaded surfaces in a way the eye may consider likely. Both are conceptually linked together and are related to the radiated fluid which we live in.

Anyway theoretically a render may looks good even without gamma correction, because has already been corrected with a lot of texture and lights tweaking, gamma correction improves the artist workflow and produces results visually correct.

Absolutely. 

Dartanbeck

the3Ddigit said:

I love the hair in FF cutscenes

Final Fantasy?

WendyLuvsCatz

Dartanbeck said:

the3Ddigit said:

I love the hair in FF cutscenes

Final Fantasy?

yes, video Magaremoto linked but watched mamy before on youtube.

Vyusur

PhilW said:

magaremoto said:

 

Very beautiful portrait and great render, PhilW, like many others from your render collection that I've seen so far. I couldn't get this quality of portrait render yet, but hope to get more acquaintance with this program in future. Thank you also for great light settings that you shared, so I could discover that glow material can emit light.

PhilW

Vyusur said:

PhilW said:

magaremoto said:

 

Thank you also for great light settings that you shared, so I could discover that glow material can emit light.

Just remember that to get the lighting effect from a glowing object, you need to have Indirect Light on and set to Full Indirect Lighting.  I think it is one of the best ways to light a scene, you can create large mesh lights that give a lovely diffuse lighting effect that looks very natural.  Combine this with the use of gamma correction (sorry to harp on about it) and you are well on your way.

magaremoto

how envious  I am:

http://www.imaginaction.com/2016/12/rendering-del-giorno-173/

hey daz, may I suggest to sell products like these:

http://texturing.xyz/

Vyusur

Here I used your lighting settings (glow 450), second picture – all the same, but I replaced glow plane with shape light (square) with glow 350% and a map in backdrop channel, and in third picture I added one distant light to the scene.

PhilW

I tried the scene with a shape light myself, but the falloff of the light never looks right to me.

TangoAlpha

Just had to force quit Carrara because I accidentally enabled glow on the global light shader and then forgot that I had Save Image Preview turned on. So when I saved the scene to use network render (for speed) it was going to take just as long to save the file. Bit of an own goal there! 

FifthElement

 

magaremoto said:

hey daz, may I suggest to sell products like these:

http://texturing.xyz/

So, how much you are willing to pay for that kind of texturing ? 

Anyways, here is LuxCore render of my scene, only one light (well, LuxCore Sun-Sky light) ...

Vyusur

PhilW said:

I tried the scene with a shape light myself, but the falloff of the light never looks right to me.

Yes, I agree: falloff with this kind of light is always not enough noticeable.

Vyusur

FifthElement said:

 

magaremoto said:

hey daz, may I suggest to sell products like these:

http://texturing.xyz/

So, how much you are willing to pay for that kind of texturing ? 

Anyways, here is LuxCore render of my scene, only one light (well, LuxCore Sun-Sky light) ...

 

Usually I try to avoid too bright light from windows: It hurts my eyes. Anyways, your geometry is perfect.

magaremoto

guys behind renderotica certainly would pay a fortune for gals like that. Hope to see such a figure in a vr device sooner or later

Rendered in vray, an updated and luckily developed biased engine similar to carrara one (sigh)

I like the luxcore version especially the light aura