Rendering Tip - Use Camera Lights

[Al Hart]

By using lights attached to the camera, you can:

 

• *Add illumination which moves with the camera.
  *Make it easy to render several views of a model without having to add additional lights for each view.
  *Insure that the objects you are focusing on are well illuminated.
  

 

Scene rendered with lights attached to the camera.

 

It is often very difficult to place enough lights in your drawing to be fully realistic. Ambient light settings help with this, but often produce a flat effect. By placing movable lights, attached to the camera you can add effective illumination and highlighting which will be used for all views.

 

Lights which move with your camera make it easier to illuminate scenes with out having to place lights for every view angle you may want to use. [Edit: These can be multiple lights attached to the camera - but they can be offset as far as desired - left and right, up and down.]

 

You can, and should, add lights to your scene - especially lights which will appear in the rendered image. However, a couple of lights placed near the camera will provide good illumination for the rest of the scene.

 

Align Lights before Rendering

 

Some rendering packages will automatically align the lights to the view when you render. For SketchUp users, for more information on how to create Camera Lights and use the SketchUp plugin to align them, see this article on the Render Plus Web Site: Camera Lights

For more of out Rendering Tips, See: Rendering Tips

Edited November 5, 2009 by Al Hart

[Stephen Thomas]

Forgive me but I can't think of a single instance where this kind of setup would seem like a good idea.

[Al Hart]

Oh.

 

Remember that the image I included is intentionally harsh. The camera light should be used to augment other lighting.

[Stephen Thomas]

Sorry, wasn't meaning to sound rude. Just that you very rarely see an image where the main light source is directly behind the camera. Lighting coming from the side is generally more pleasing to the eye and creates more interesting shadows, reveals form and texture etc.

[Al Hart]

Ah - now I understand. I need to modify my tip to make it clear that I am referring to multiple lights attached to the camera - but they can be offset as far as desird - left and right, up and down.

[JamesL]

It'd be really useful if you were trying to recreate Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield or similar...

 

Just kidding - I'm sure it may come in handy at some point and will try it out!

[amer abidi]

I agree with Stephen.

 

Every succesfully lit scene has its own unique lighting rig and setup. Having several lights attached to a moving camera will prove DISASTER, especially if the camera is animated... I can only imagine the moving shadows all over the place!

 

The only time this can ever be usefull is as James said, Blair witch style; and even that is just an "effect" and everything in the scene needs to be adressed seperately in order for your rscene to be successfully lit.

 

So Nay to that tip from me.

[lyca]

I agree with Stephen.

 

Every succesfully lit scene has its own unique lighting rig and setup. Having

 

So Nay to that tip from me.

 

i totally second that, it would be really hard to rende the animation with backed lights, so the power you save by putting less lights would be completely lost by the rending of the IR for every frame...

[AJLynn]

This is a terrible idea. By associating the position of the lights with the camera instead of the scene you would make your lighting arbitrary and probably ugly. Learn to light the scene correctly - there is no shortage of information on the subject out there.

[Al Hart]

Wow! I didn't expect such a negative response. Perhaps this is not a good idea.

 

But I still think that some scenes, especially by beginning (or perhaps lackadaisical) renderers, can be easily improved with some camera oriented lighting. But maybe the is a lot to be said for learning how to position lights well.

[jinsley]

I'm with Stephen, Amer and the rest...

 

To render multiple views = scene state manager + setting up your lights accordingly

[Sawyer]

The only time this would be appropriate is when you are recreating (usually for whimsical purproses) a scene with a camera flash. But most of the time the look produce by a camera based light will be the opposite of what you would consider a quality photograph. It would be a look most professional photographers go to great lengths to avoid.

[jkletzien]

Don't sweat it Al, we've all posted some stuff others disagree with.

 

And how good is this Friedlander photograph, doing precisely what you recommend..

 

http://www.artlies.org/article.php?id=1619&issue=58&s=1

[carlotristan3d]

Oh.

 

Remember that the image I included is intentionally harsh. The camera light should be used to augment other lighting.

 

Thanks for the tip but I don't think it works, anyway I'll keep an open mind. Can you show us a nice rendering using this technique.

[Michael J. Brown]

Gotta chime in with Sawyer on this one.

 

My exact thoughts when I saw the sample image with the table and chairs was that this technique would only be useful if trying to make it look as if the viewer had snapped a shot with a camera using a single source flash - which, frankly, is a big no-no even in the world of amateur photography. At least when hard shadows result from it.

 

It would be interesting to see this technique in application on a much better lit and more comprehensive scene though. My instinct tells me that it would essentially cancel out the effects of an otherwise well balanced lighting solution by eliminating the built-in 'depth' of a scene. In other words, why bother lighting a scene the proper way only to hi-jack it at render time with what amounts to a spot light?

 

Try submitting an image of a more comprehensive scene using this technique. That would help tons in proving your theory. Shoot it with and without the "flash". I'd really like to see your results.

Edited November 6, 2009 by renderhaus

[HamburgerTrain]

actually this can be a good tip. the best times to use a flash in photography is at daytime, it can remove nasty sharp shadows. best for portraits but haven't really tried it on buildings yet! might not work well there but point is flash photography in the right hands looks really good.

[YOHKOH]

For goodness sake Al,

 

how dare you come in here as a junior member, no less, and start throwing you weight around with such ideas.

 

Clearly you seem to be suggesting that everyone has to use your technique otherwise they will end up in prison or on some rendition flight to who knows where.

 

Next time you have a bright idea that you think might be of use to someone, keep it to yourself. Or just right it down on a piece of paper and smack your head of the desk several times to spare eveyone else the bother.

 

What an absolute fool.

[kippu]

actually the real estate photographers always use a multitude of flashes to photograph a space ....always wondered how come we never do that in 3d

[jinsley]

For goodness sake Al,

 

how dare you come in here as a junior member, no less, and start throwing you weight around with such ideas.

 

Clearly you seem to be suggesting that everyone has to use your technique otherwise they will end up in prison or on some rendition flight to who knows where.

 

Next time you have a bright idea that you think might be of use to someone, keep it to yourself. Or just right it down on a piece of paper and smack your head of the desk several times to spare eveyone else the bother.

 

What an absolute fool.

 

I don't think alot of people mean to bash on the idea... just sharing what experience and techniques they have learned over the years. If it hadn't been for members of cgarchitect expressing their opinions on my ideas and images, I wouldn't be were I am today.

[Michael J. Brown]

For goodness sake Al,

 

how dare you come in here as a junior member, no less, and start throwing you weight around with such ideas...What an absolute fool.

 

For a moment, I thought perhaps you were building up to a sarcastic climax - but I never saw it. I agree that Al should definately hold off on the dispensing of certain types of "this-is-the-way-it's-done" tips and tricks until he has either (a) proven his ability to produce exceptional work or (b) at least acheived a higher status than Junior Member. But don't you think you were just a bit rough there, Jim?

 

actually the real estate photographers always use a multitude of flashes to photograph a space ....always wondered how come we never do that in 3d

 

Multiple flashes (set at complimentary positions and fired simultaneously) is one thing - this is similar to what's done in television lighting. But what Al is suggesting is a single "flash" from the camera's location. The client would LOVE images produced this way because they commonly want to see their entire scenes lit to the hilt, as opposed to being lit properly and artistically. But personally, as a digital artist, I want my scenes to be more about mode than optimal lighting and being able to see every single detail.

Edited November 13, 2009 by renderhaus

[YOHKOH]

I was indeed being sarcastic. The whole post was me climaxing.

[easy3dsource]

I was indeed being sarcastic. The whole post was me climaxing.

 

This is further proof that the internet needs a "sarcasm" key...

 

...I read it as sarcasm because I thought it was too ridiculous to be serious, haha.

[Michael J. Brown]

This is further proof that the internet needs a "sarcasm" key...

 

 

Well... There you have it Jeff (Mottle). Let's get a "sarcasm" emoticon, stat. Let's start a petittion for it. (And I'm really serious, not being sarcastic). I think it would help curb the mis-interpretations that can occur when levity gets mis-read as dogma.

[Nic H]

 

^ this is used for sarcasm on loads of forums.

it is true that americans often miss sarcastic humour!

[Tommy L]

 

 

it is true that americans often miss sarcastic humour!

 

I hope thats sarcasm, nic.