Loading...
> >

Can we have some basic IRAY lights in DAZ Studio Basic?

2

Comments

  • MattymanxMattymanx Posts: 6,996
    Sevrin said:

    I find all the ISO, F-stop, shutter speed, etc stuff precious and unnecessarily complicated.  Image making in Daz isn't photography, so the conceits aren't necessary.   People coming to Daz don't all have a photography background, and those who do will likely roll their eyes at the implemtation of these concepts.  Well, at least I do.  Shutter speed!  Motion blur! Um, no.

    It would be simpler if it were just:

    Scene: Lighter/Darker, and then the filters, like bloom, caustic, etc.

    Light: Lighter/Darker, along with the modifers that shape the light, such as beam spread, distance, shape.

    Camera: Field of view, depth of field yes/no, more/less depth of field, focal distance.  Distance would come from where you put the camera, obv.

    Oh, and yeah.  Documentation would be nice.

    On the Render Setting Tab, under Environment, there is "Environment Intensity" & "Environment Map" (HDRI maps) which can both be adjusted for overall lighting instead of trying to understand and adjust the settings under Tone Mapping.

     

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,072
    Sevrin said:

    I find all the ISO, F-stop, shutter speed, etc stuff precious and unnecessarily complicated.  Image making in Daz isn't photography, so the conceits aren't necessary.   People coming to Daz don't all have a photography background, and those who do will likely roll their eyes at the implemtation of these concepts.  Well, at least I do.  Shutter speed!  Motion blur! Um, no.

    It would be simpler if it were just:

    Scene: Lighter/Darker, and then the filters, like bloom, caustic, etc.

    Light: Lighter/Darker, along with the modifers that shape the light, such as beam spread, distance, shape.

    Camera: Field of view, depth of field yes/no, more/less depth of field, focal distance.  Distance would come from where you put the camera, obv.

    Oh, and yeah.  Documentation would be nice.

    Just use the Exposure slider then (which adjusts ISO as I recall, the thing is in DS it doesn't actually matter which control you use to adjust the tone - there are not the trade-offs there are with a physical camera).

  • fastbike1fastbike1 Posts: 4,078
    edited September 2019

    How would you define properly? I use a fairly wide range of values depending on the scene I build. Do you always use the same lighting values? It you're changing lighting values to get the scene you want, I wouldn't think it mattered if the change by factor or orders of magnitude.

    FWIW, you can change the default value in the settings (click the gear icon) for the spotlight, etc.

     

    RKane_1 said:
    akmerlow said:

    Yeah but maybe OP meant something similar to "light kit" that luxrender users were getting with Reality for DAZ?

    That would be  nice, but more just a set of lights like spotlight and such PRE-TWEAKED up so that they light a scene properly in Iray Renders.

     

    Post edited by fastbike1 on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621

    Haha this is funny=) No no don't make things easier by all meanslaugh

  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 7,139

    Must admit, since returning to DS after a long break from figure rendering, I have never used 3DL. It also baffles me why the lights default to working properly for an obsolete renderer, rather than defaulting to working properly for the more modern/ current default/ more recent renderer. 

    The OP's solution seems to be a compromise to me. Why not replace the 3DL lights with IRay lights & be done with it? It's highly likely that 3DL will disappear from DS at some point in the near-ish future. That's what happens with obsolete tech.

  • akmerlowakmerlow Posts: 1,124
    edited September 2019
    richardandtracy_e725004c1a said:

    Why not replace the 3DL lights with IRay lights & be done with it? It's highly likely that 3DL will disappear from DS at some point in the near-ish future. That's what happens with obsolete tech.

    There is more to daz renders that just photorealism, you know.

    Post edited by akmerlow on
  • SpottedKittySpottedKitty Posts: 7,232
    nonesuch00 said:
    Similarly a few Sun-Sky settings and HDRIs should be part of the DAZ Studio Essentials, maybe 4 each.

    HDRIs already are — look again at the freebies that come with the D|S program download. One of them is DAZ Studio Iray HDR Outdoor Environments and includes five sets of presets. Haven't used them for a while, I have lots of other environment sets and freebie .hdr files.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,072
    richardandtracy_e725004c1a said:

    Must admit, since returning to DS after a long break from figure rendering, I have never used 3DL. It also baffles me why the lights default to working properly for an obsolete renderer, rather than defaulting to working properly for the more modern/ current default/ more recent renderer. 

    The OP's solution seems to be a compromise to me. Why not replace the 3DL lights with IRay lights & be done with it? It's highly likely that 3DL will disappear from DS at some point in the near-ish future. That's what happens with obsolete tech.

    I'm not sure what you mean by the lights working with the old engien only. They are room light strength, load them and you need to adjust tone mapping (as you would with a real camera). Upping the strength of the lights is not the best way to go about it.

  • Carola OCarola O Posts: 3,857

    I have to admit... that I always assumed that the Distant Light, Spot light and Point Light that are part of Studio were for 3dl only, unless I manually went into the settings for each light and changed it. Have I been wrong in thinking that? *curious*

  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,212

    You have to go in and turn Photometric Mode on, if it is off, to get the Iray Parameters.

  • Carola OCarola O Posts: 3,857

    ah I see, thanks Fishtales :)

  • AlmightyQUESTAlmightyQUEST Posts: 2,006
    I thought it changed a few versions ago, that if your render engine was set to Iray, it loaded the lights with photometric on? Maybe this is why this topic had been confusing me...
  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,212

    I've edited my previous post as it was Emissive lights I was referring to (that will teach me to go look before posting) where I use cd/cm2. But even with the lights I seldom have to use high Lumen numbers.

    If you look here and scroll down you will see some experiments I did where I started with a Spotlight at the default 1500 Lumen.

    https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/2898646/#Comment_2898646

  • benniewoodellbenniewoodell Posts: 1,999
    Sevrin said:

    I find all the ISO, F-stop, shutter speed, etc stuff precious and unnecessarily complicated.  Image making in Daz isn't photography, so the conceits aren't necessary.   People coming to Daz don't all have a photography background, and those who do will likely roll their eyes at the implemtation of these concepts.  Well, at least I do.  Shutter speed!  Motion blur! Um, no.

    It would be simpler if it were just:

    Scene: Lighter/Darker, and then the filters, like bloom, caustic, etc.

    Light: Lighter/Darker, along with the modifers that shape the light, such as beam spread, distance, shape.

    Camera: Field of view, depth of field yes/no, more/less depth of field, focal distance.  Distance would come from where you put the camera, obv.

    Oh, and yeah.  Documentation would be nice.

    Actually that's one of the reasons I love Daz, I was able to turn it on and figure out Iray in virtually no time at all because all the lighting and camera settings were pretty much all I've been using for nearly 20 years. So those of us with a background, don't roll out eyes. I can understand if you're not in the film/photography field and don't like the settings, but it's pretty amazing that I can create exactly what I want a shot to look like here and then show it to my DP and do it on set. I storyboarded a feature film I directed last summer with Daz and the DP looked at what I wanted the shot and lighting to look like and that's what I got. Pretty damn cool.
  • RKane_1RKane_1 Posts: 3,039
    fastbike1 said:
    akmerlow said:

    That would be  nice, but more just a set of lights like spotlight and such PRE-TWEAKED up so that they light a scene properly in Iray Renders.

    How would you define properly?  *CLIP*

    Ignoring the rest of your post as it is just as deliriously and pointlessly over-analyzing as many posts here.

    Properly... Not requiring a tweak to up the lighting to where it shows a visible bit of light in the IRAY render so that 100% is a bright light, and 50% is less bright by about half. That work for ya, junior?

  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,313
    benniewoodell said:
    Sevrin said:

    I find all the ISO, F-stop, shutter speed, etc stuff precious and unnecessarily complicated.  Image making in Daz isn't photography, so the conceits aren't necessary.   People coming to Daz don't all have a photography background, and those who do will likely roll their eyes at the implemtation of these concepts.  Well, at least I do.  Shutter speed!  Motion blur! Um, no.

    It would be simpler if it were just:

    Scene: Lighter/Darker, and then the filters, like bloom, caustic, etc.

    Light: Lighter/Darker, along with the modifers that shape the light, such as beam spread, distance, shape.

    Camera: Field of view, depth of field yes/no, more/less depth of field, focal distance.  Distance would come from where you put the camera, obv.

    Oh, and yeah.  Documentation would be nice.

     

    Actually that's one of the reasons I love Daz, I was able to turn it on and figure out Iray in virtually no time at all because all the lighting and camera settings were pretty much all I've been using for nearly 20 years. So those of us with a background, don't roll out eyes. I can understand if you're not in the film/photography field and don't like the settings, but it's pretty amazing that I can create exactly what I want a shot to look like here and then show it to my DP and do it on set. I storyboarded a feature film I directed last summer with Daz and the DP looked at what I wanted the shot and lighting to look like and that's what I got. Pretty damn cool.

    Actually, I was raised on Tri-X and developing my own film and making my own prints and working as a darkroom tech back in the day.  It's not that I don't like the settings for photography.   I understand their use in photography, but they don't work the same in Daz, and they add unnecessary complexity and confusion.   They could simplify the controls and reduce their number by half and we would see better renders and everything would be peachy.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,072
    Sevrin said:
    benniewoodell said:
    Sevrin said:

    I find all the ISO, F-stop, shutter speed, etc stuff precious and unnecessarily complicated.  Image making in Daz isn't photography, so the conceits aren't necessary.   People coming to Daz don't all have a photography background, and those who do will likely roll their eyes at the implemtation of these concepts.  Well, at least I do.  Shutter speed!  Motion blur! Um, no.

    It would be simpler if it were just:

    Scene: Lighter/Darker, and then the filters, like bloom, caustic, etc.

    Light: Lighter/Darker, along with the modifers that shape the light, such as beam spread, distance, shape.

    Camera: Field of view, depth of field yes/no, more/less depth of field, focal distance.  Distance would come from where you put the camera, obv.

    Oh, and yeah.  Documentation would be nice.

     

    Actually that's one of the reasons I love Daz, I was able to turn it on and figure out Iray in virtually no time at all because all the lighting and camera settings were pretty much all I've been using for nearly 20 years. So those of us with a background, don't roll out eyes. I can understand if you're not in the film/photography field and don't like the settings, but it's pretty amazing that I can create exactly what I want a shot to look like here and then show it to my DP and do it on set. I storyboarded a feature film I directed last summer with Daz and the DP looked at what I wanted the shot and lighting to look like and that's what I got. Pretty damn cool.

    Actually, I was raised on Tri-X and developing my own film and making my own prints and working as a darkroom tech back in the day.  It's not that I don't like the settings for photography.   I understand their use in photography, but they don't work the same in Daz, and they add unnecessary complexity and confusion.   They could simplify the controls and reduce their number by half and we would see better renders and everything would be peachy.

    As I said, just use the Exposure setting and ignore the others - I could back a request to have a toggle to show/hide the advanced settings, but I don't think they should be removed.

  • jestmartjestmart Posts: 4,449

    In Iray Linear Point Lights are just Point Lights as Iray uses real fall off.

  • Subtropic PixelSubtropic Pixel Posts: 2,388
    Fishtales said:

    I have been surrounded by photography for nearly seventy years, between my dad and myself, and use the settings in Tone Mapping all the time to set up the Environment for a render. For Emissive lighting I use cd/cm2 which means I can use lower settings than those recommended on the forums. I find using that setting with the recommended lumen for the type of light works, for me. When using a photograph that I have taken myself as a Background I use the Exif data to set the camera up and the Latitude/Longitude, time of day etc to set the Environment Dome. The camera I turn to face the direction that I was facing at the time e.g. North, South, East or West, or anything in between :)

    It works as in this image. 

    Click on image for full size.

    I admire your efforts to merge photography with 3D and I respect your photography background (I also have a background in film photography).  That's pretty geeky and I love it.  But that "merged-media" image is now DARK to me because the now-subject is shrouded in shadow compared to all the other messages I'm getting from the image.  I don't want to derail the conversation, but it bugs me that she's sitting OUTDOORS on a bright day and my brain can't find any of the most important information needed in order to develop an understanding of the subject in this background.  Cloudy, yes.  But bright.  It's bright enough to cast a high-contrast shadow of her figure onto the sand.  But how is it that her face and leg, facing the sun source, are still buried in shadow?

    Is this how a real lady sitting on that beach would look if the original photo had included her?  If so, then a fill-flash would probably be appropriate.  Or is there something missing in the software's "lighting system" or in the process used to merge these two media types together into a single cohesive whole?

    To keep the conversation somewhat on track, I wholeheartedly agree that we still need to have photographic-based tools available to us.  Concepts such as film-size, focal lengths, focus, apertures, shutter speeds, and the behavior of flash all come from humans' best attempts to measure and describe the physics of the world we live in and the universe around us.  And it's all based in reality, at least considering our non-deity perspective. 

    Contrary to what somebody else said in this thread, we can't just throw away those concepts.  We should be learning them and applying them instead, so that all of our images are easily understood by our intended audiences.

  • Subtropic PixelSubtropic Pixel Posts: 2,388
    Richard Haseltine said:
    Sevrin said:
    benniewoodell said:
    Sevrin said:

    I find all the ISO, F-stop, shutter speed, etc stuff precious and unnecessarily complicated.  Image making in Daz isn't photography, so the conceits aren't necessary.   People coming to Daz don't all have a photography background, and those who do will likely roll their eyes at the implemtation of these concepts.  Well, at least I do.  Shutter speed!  Motion blur! Um, no.

    It would be simpler if it were just:

    Scene: Lighter/Darker, and then the filters, like bloom, caustic, etc.

    Light: Lighter/Darker, along with the modifers that shape the light, such as beam spread, distance, shape.

    Camera: Field of view, depth of field yes/no, more/less depth of field, focal distance.  Distance would come from where you put the camera, obv.

    Oh, and yeah.  Documentation would be nice.

     

    Actually that's one of the reasons I love Daz, I was able to turn it on and figure out Iray in virtually no time at all because all the lighting and camera settings were pretty much all I've been using for nearly 20 years. So those of us with a background, don't roll out eyes. I can understand if you're not in the film/photography field and don't like the settings, but it's pretty amazing that I can create exactly what I want a shot to look like here and then show it to my DP and do it on set. I storyboarded a feature film I directed last summer with Daz and the DP looked at what I wanted the shot and lighting to look like and that's what I got. Pretty damn cool.

    Actually, I was raised on Tri-X and developing my own film and making my own prints and working as a darkroom tech back in the day.  It's not that I don't like the settings for photography.   I understand their use in photography, but they don't work the same in Daz, and they add unnecessary complexity and confusion.   They could simplify the controls and reduce their number by half and we would see better renders and everything would be peachy.

    As I said, just use the Exposure setting and ignore the others - I could back a request to have a toggle to show/hide the advanced settings, but I don't think they should be removed.

    I agree.

  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 6,212

    @Subtropic Pixel

    Her back is to the sun so her face and legs are in shadow. Her feet are in the sun because they are outside the shadow from her body.

  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 7,139
    Richard Haseltine said:
    richardandtracy_e725004c1a said:

    Must admit, since returning to DS after a long break from figure rendering, I have never used 3DL. It also baffles me why the lights default to working properly for an obsolete renderer, rather than defaulting to working properly for the more modern/ current default/ more recent renderer. 

    The OP's solution seems to be a compromise to me. Why not replace the 3DL lights with IRay lights & be done with it? It's highly likely that 3DL will disappear from DS at some point in the near-ish future. That's what happens with obsolete tech.

    I'm not sure what you mean by the lights working with the old engien only. They are room light strength, load them and you need to adjust tone mapping (as you would with a real camera). Upping the strength of the lights is not the best way to go about it.

    That's the whole point of the OP's post. The more recent renderer needs you to fiddle with the lights a lot. The obsolete renderer doesn't. Is this a logical situation to be in? I am convinced that it's irrational.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,072
    richardandtracy_e725004c1a said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    richardandtracy_e725004c1a said:

    Must admit, since returning to DS after a long break from figure rendering, I have never used 3DL. It also baffles me why the lights default to working properly for an obsolete renderer, rather than defaulting to working properly for the more modern/ current default/ more recent renderer. 

    The OP's solution seems to be a compromise to me. Why not replace the 3DL lights with IRay lights & be done with it? It's highly likely that 3DL will disappear from DS at some point in the near-ish future. That's what happens with obsolete tech.

    I'm not sure what you mean by the lights working with the old engien only. They are room light strength, load them and you need to adjust tone mapping (as you would with a real camera). Upping the strength of the lights is not the best way to go about it.

    That's the whole point of the OP's post. The more recent renderer needs you to fiddle with the lights a lot. The obsolete renderer doesn't. Is this a logical situation to be in? I am convinced that it's irrational.

    Again, there is nothing wrong with the lights - they are reasonable values for use as lights. The issue is adjusting the Tone Mapping to be suitable for different conditions. and I do agree it would be desirable to include some presets to help with that.

  • fastbike1fastbike1 Posts: 4,078

    @Richard Haseltine "Upping the strength of the lights is not the best way to go about it."

    Why in the world do you say that? You know Iray reasonably simulates real world lighting. Just cranking exposure is a one trick pony that's worse more often than not. If the goal is decent renders then the aritist needs to understand lighting to a reasonable degree. it's not nearly as difficult as some people think,

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,072
    edited September 2019
    fastbike1 said:

    @Richard Haseltine "Upping the strength of the lights is not the best way to go about it."

    Why in the world do you say that? You know Iray reasonably simulates real world lighting. Just cranking exposure is a one trick pony that's worse more often than not. If the goal is decent renders then the aritist needs to understand lighting to a reasonable degree. it's not nearly as difficult as some people think,

    Because real-world rooms are not lit by 1,000W+ lighting. It's precisely because Iray is simulating real world lighting that I say it's a bad idea to make the lights behave unlike real world lighting.

    Although I've not had great success with it the nVidia Iray Preview mode does give an exposure meter - click the +/- icon next to the preview mode sphere and then click in the scene (on an area that should be reasonably but not brightly lit, I think).

    Post edited by Richard Haseltine on
  • GordigGordig Posts: 10,600
    edited September 2019

    Here's something I think everyone can agree on: it would be nice if Daz's lights included the same option as the emissive shader, that allows you to change what unit of measure the luminance setting uses. Just being able to switch from cd/m^2 to cd/cm^2 would go a long way to solving the OP's frustrations, and the W setting would make it easier to approximate real-life indoor lighting.

    Post edited by Gordig on
  • TimbalesTimbales Posts: 2,423

    I don't have issues with Daz Studio, I like learning new things and enjoy the challenge. Once you have a set-up you like, you can save it as a default starting scene to build from. Or use a purchased product lighting rig. 

  • RKane_1RKane_1 Posts: 3,039

    I would also love if just the standard lights operated differently so that they were sufficiently amplified in IRAY renders. Like a spolight knew to operate one way for 3DL renders but had an "Iray Amplification" setting that would ramp the light up ONLY for Iray renders.

  • takezo_3001takezo_3001 Posts: 2,026
    edited September 2019
    FSMCDesigns said:

    this freebie is the base I use as a starting point hxxp://xxx.valzheimer(dot)info/2016/11/va2016-rgb-hdri-soft-lights-for-daz.html

     

    My MalwareBytes web guard flagged this link unfortunately...

    Website blocked due to a suspicious top level domain (TLD)

    Website blocked: xxx.valzheimer(DOT)info

    Malwarebytes Browser Guard blocked this website because it may contain scam activity.

    We strongly recommend you do not continue.

    I edited the webaddress so as not to directly link to it.

    Post edited by takezo_3001 on
  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited September 2019

    I use Malwarebytes, the paid for version and nothing flags up for me,  and neither does my AV react,   That link is perfectly OK

    The site belongs to one of the Daz PAs

     

    Post edited by Chohole on
Sign In or Register to comment.