What is the difference between the Elianeck Light Packages?
outrider42
Posts: 3,679
in The Commons
I see 5 Elianeck packages, but the descriptions don't really describe very much about what they are or do. Specifically, what is the difference between packs 1, 2, and 3?
If this has been covered, I couldn't find it searching these forums with Google.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I own several sets and they are quite similar
Is there one that is any better than the other? Like is the first one designed more for 4.8 than 4.9 or whatever? Are the new ones improved in some way?
I read that they are mostly HDRI based lights, do they work in doors? I rarely buy any lights.
I like face and body and the first set but they seem kind of similar to me. Don't know about 4.8
Most of the Iray sets don't work well indoors although you can use them but will need additional lights that make it bright or remove ceilings and hide walls
Most of my scenes are set indoors so I tend to have to remove the roof or render the background and foregrround separately. Iray struggles with indoor lighting in my opinion and I don't have hours to render dim scenes do I cheat
Oh yes, Iray has trouble indoors. I do the same things with removing ceilings and walls to help it out, too.
Iray doesn't have a problem with lighting interiors, it just that cookie cutter lightsets are too simple for the complexity involved in lighting an indoor scene. A basic lightset may hav 2-3 lights, whereas an interior light scene will have as many as 35 light sources.
Good point. Sometimes you just have to do the work.
The problem is emissive indoor lighting takes a very long time to render. So for me that is a problem and a limitation of th Iray engine.
Iray is just a tool to use to make a render. As is 3Delight. What you put into it, you get a result. 3D renders is all about math calculations. Emmisive surfaces in and of themselves are probably not as big an issue from a time stand point as other calculations like reflections, refraction and transparency. Now if you put a transparent glass material in front of an emissive surface shining a light through it, then your calculations increase x4 (emissive, reflective, refractive, and transparency) Use whatever works best for what you want to accomplish.
I don't have much experience of PBR renderers other than iRay, but I would imagine that Octane, Reality, Cycles etc would have similar issues with indoor renders taking longer. An indoor scene will typically rely far more on indirect light than an outdoor scene, and all those light bounce calculations take a lot of time. This issue is not specific to a particular renderer, but simply the reality of how different scenes receive their illumination. As such I would not describe iRay as being "flawed" in how it handles indoor scenes, because I would assume other renderers would suffer the same problems.
It really depends on many factors including your style an artistic resource Iray rendered interior shots without cheater lights tend to lack drama. Realism is fine if you are doing an architectural render but most of the time you are going to want more dramatic lighting than the rooms wall sconce will provide where characters are added.
Iray renders interior shots slowly and that is my reality. I tend to simply have to layer more and cheat more to get the results I want within my limited time I can do DAZ.
My goal is usually not to illustrate building interiors in a highly realistic manner promo artists and vendors do that already. I am more interested in using the interior as a backdrop for whatever is happening in the foreground so,doing what I can to minimize my render time is the way I have to go.
Using IES profiles on emissive surfaces take some of those other calculations into account...the profile has already done the math for the 'source' (bulb, fixture, etc), so all the renderer is doing is the lighting and the associated shadows, reflections, etc for the objects being lit, like any other light. That can greatly reduce the time needed to render.
The same for 'windows'. If the window is 'off camera' and the actual glass is not going to be seen, removing it will provide a boost in render speed, because all the refraction, reflections and so on won't need to be calculated., It's now just a hole in a wall that lets in light.
Also making sure caustics is off, if not needed, will go a long way to speeding up interior renders.
Exactly...it's the nature of the beast.
Some are optimized to handle indoor scenes a little more efficiently, but any full raytracer that attempts to reduce or eliminate rendering bias will take longer to render an 'indoor' scene than an open 'outdoor' one.
Another way to reduce render times in Iray...introduce a major bias and cut back the 'infinite' bounce calculations...
The following renders have the max time set to 600. The rendering machine is a 4 core AMD processor at 2 GHz with 8 GB of RAM. The set is the Modern Living Attic Bedroom. Default tonemapping was used for everything.
First render: No lights, just the default HDRI in the dome, Dome and Scene, Headlamp off.
Second render: same, with the glass removed
Third: Same as the second, with limited bounces. (max path length)
4th is the same as 3rd with Architectural sampler turned on...
None of them are really usable, but after only 10 mins I didn't expect them to be. They do show some differences...and the number of iterations goes up in that time period for each 'optimization'. In other words there were more iterations without the glass than there were with it...