LWF for interior with artificial lights??

[archigem]

Hi,

Now I am really confused. First of all... I know how to set up the lwf and a decent knowledge about it. But.. I was trying to find out some lighting tutorials for the interiors with completely artificial lights... but didn't found any with LWF.

Now I've some doubts, may be you people could help..

(and I think this time I really needs the Expert's help:confused:)

 

(LWF settings:

max gamma:2.2,

input and output:1, (with the texture input override with gamma 2.2)

affect color and material: yes,

color mapping: linear with gamma:2.2 and "don't affect colors" option ticked.)

 

 

 

1. Is the color mapping options works with lwf?? I don't find any difference by using different options...!

 

2. many people says that "don't affect color" should be on for more details. is it true?

what exactly it do?

 

3. Why don't I found any good tutorial on it? every other tut is based on LWF basically on a day time.

 

4. Even the evermotion site tut (http://www.evermotion.org/tutorials/show/7900/making-interior-scene) is not using the LWF.

 

another: http://www.3dtotal.com/forums_frameset/index.php?e=http://www.3dtotal.com/tutorial/3d_studio_max/bedroom_white_and_wood_scene/bedroom_white_and_wood_01.php

 

If it is a so good option then why not they are using it for their scenes?

and yes ... I do not see much color bleeding in their images. How did they manage it? with override mat??? I doubt it.

 

5. Is there is any need for AO pass in interiors? if yes how can we achieve it without having any environment?

 

6. Again ... is it really good option to use it in the given case...... or should I switch over to normal reinhard etc for the interiors???

 

 

There are a lots of question are running in my mind. But please help as I starts using the LWF but could get the decent result with it in interiors with artificial lights.

Edited July 2, 2011 by archigem

[CliveG]

Archigem, when it comes to forums all you'll get are opinions and no idea whether they are "Expert" or not and when it comes to LWF you'll get a dozen differing opinions, even from non-expert's like me!

 

Gamma 2.2 is extremely confusing and if you listened to everything everyone said you'd get nowhere! My advice would be to take an afternoon out and set up a relatively complex scene perhaps similar to one of the scenes used to illustrate those tutorials. Then set about rendering and re-rendering that scene changing all of the Gamma and Colour Mapping settings and writing down the results. It's a lot more instructive. I can't emphasise that enough... you'll learn a lot more than asking here!

 

For what it's worth I believe that there is no "must use" colour mapping though I understand that Linear Mult is going to most closely reflect real world performance, but that said most of us just want our work to look good and if Reinhard works best for you (I still use it often) then use it.

 

I think the main thing is to get to a work flow you're comfortable with and relax about it, make the usual fine adjustments and progress from there.

 

AO pass: Vrayextratex from your "renderelements" tab with a dirtmap is an easy and reliable way. Then you can overlay it in post and decide for yourself whether you need it in interiors or not (I generally do need it!)

 

Good Luck

Edited July 3, 2011 by CliveG
typo

[archigem]

Thanks complete newbie,

I m very thankful for your reply, but you don't get me. The advice about the AO pass is appears to be useful but rest of it... sorry.

I respect your concern but U failed to understand that I am writing this after spending a lots of day and sleepless nights. Also if you know about the LWF, then u must know that it's never been a good idea to update an old scene in to lwf. It will get u (or me ) nowhere. It'll becomes even more confusing. (u need to change the complete lighting materials and cam... and then there is no help remains from the file)

When we starts working on gamma, we set up a complete new materials and mat library which is different from the earlier one. I asked these questions after a lot of searching, reading, and practicing on the scenes.

As the author said in this tut : http://www.aversis.be/tutorials/vray/essential_gamma_01.htm

 

"The gamma 2.2 setup changes your workflow only slightly, but it makes your life a lot easier!" (please check the section "Old habits die hard")

And I found that it's true that in this workflow the colors don't bleed, the texture in scene looks like just as the texture jpg, and all that.

 

My point is if it is such a great way of working then why the top people are not using it for the interiors (what's the point), or why there are not a few good tutorials out there?? (few are there but not as good as I mentioned earlier like : http://www.cgdigest.com/linear-workflow/

which does not seems promising )

 

Should I've to set up two different set-ups for working? cause it changes a lot once you got to used to it.

 

Yeah I am searching for the opinions but... what I means about the experts is may be the people who are using LWF or familiar with it, so that I don't need to explain them what is gamma and it's set up.

 

Thanks again but I m still seeking the advices of the people out there.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Hit render, look at the image that comes out. If you like what you see, and your client likes what you are giving them, then work with that.

 

Everyone gets their panties in a bind about exact LWF.

 

I would be surprised if your clients gave two hoots about LWF, they just want something that looks good, and communicates the essence of what they are trying to explain.

[CliveG]

OK Archigem, I guess you misunderstood me. What I was suggesting was that you need to draw your own conclusions, relax and work with those (no more sleepless nights eh?). It would seem that you want rules, someone to tell you definitively how to work one way or the other (or both) and in that quest I wish you luck.

 

The people who have produced those tutorials have done what I suggest; they've drawn their own conclusions which is why there isn't consensus. They have made their own minds up, as to which way suits them best.

 

I doubt you'd have someone tell you whether to vote INC or BJP or BSP or CPI, you'd probably make your own mind up?

 

 

Good luck

 

(Don't trust me, Listen to Travis... He knows!)

[archigem]

Thanks both of you.. ,

@complete newbie: I don't want anyone to tell me the rules or anything like that. But before voting (or making up my mind) I surely wants to know the history and the pros and cons of the candidate.. :-)

Please don't get me wrong, it is the quest for more knowledge. during that a lots of doubts arrives and for that I am looking for advices.

(:)and there is no reason that I should not trust you... I value your advice and do trust what u r saying)

 

@Travis: I respect your opinion, but don't you think if we stop searching new ideas or concepts which seems promising, we will stop improving? In that way like in the old days when we use the scanline renderer. At that time also our clients were satisfied with the results, then comes vray and GI solution. If we did not learned them, do you think those photo realism can be achieved as we do now days?

 

Please understand I am not being offensive, I just wanted to know more about this LWF as many things are good with this method (like the same texture color as in the map or color bleeding, and as they said vray and mr works in linear philosophy). and the method seems so promising.

 

The question remain same (sorry ) : is it really possible to creates fantastic interiors with LWF? or it's just over hyped??

Edited July 3, 2011 by archigem

[CliveG]

The question remain same (sorry ) : is it really possible to creates fantastic interiors with LWF? or it's just over hyped??

 

Hi Archigem,

 

So how does setting up a scene and trying all of the settings and deciding what you like as I originally suggested - not work in your quest for knowledge or your search for new ideas and concepts.. or is it that you want other people to do the searching for you?

 

The answer to your question is that it IS possible to create fantastic interiors with LWF and I'm afraid it is also possible to create fantastic Interiors without LWF. Just as it is possible to create fantastic interiors with Scanline.

 

Personally I'm a fan of LWF because light travels through an interior scene better than without, but as Travis say's, hit render and if you like what you see - go with that!

 

Good luck

[archigem]

Hi Archigem,

 

So how does setting up a scene and trying all of the settings and deciding what you like as I originally suggested - not work in your quest for knowledge or your search for new ideas and concepts.. or is it that you want other people to do the searching for you?

 

The answer to your question is that it IS possible to create fantastic interiors with LWF and I'm afraid it is also possible to create fantastic Interiors without LWF. Just as it is possible to create fantastic interiors with Scanline.

 

Personally I'm a fan of LWF because light travels through an interior scene better than without, but as Travis say's, hit render and if you like what you see - go with that!

 

Good luck

 

My dear friend... I am being very polite to you. But I don't accept : "is it that you want other people to do the searching for you?"

If u r not getting the point it's better to be silent than this types of allegations!

 

 

 

The answer to your question is that it IS possible to create fantastic interiors with LWF and I'm afraid it is also possible to create fantastic Interiors without LWF. Just as it is possible to create fantastic interiors with Scanline.

 

Personally I'm a fan of LWF because light travels through an interior scene better than without,

 

wow what an answer...! see better show me more than ur talking. Show me a good interior (for which we r talking right now) done with LWF, done by YOU.

(And yes I am not asking you or anybody "the settings" and all that crap, just show me image.)

 

And if you don't know what u r talking about, please do not advice. I know more than you about lwf and I know that "a great rendering can be done even effectively through hands using charcoal".

So I do not need and accept this type of questions over my intentions.

 

There are few doubts and if you could not understand them or don't have any answers, please do not give us those useless general information. It is not necessary to reply each and every thread, unless you know what u r talking about!

[CliveG]

Hi Archigem,

 

It would seem that I've upset you for which I apologise.

 

Good luck in your quest.

 

CN

[Dave Buckley]

Why are you using 2.2 in the colour mapping with don't affect colours ticked? Why not just leave it at 1 with don't affect colour unpicked.

 

You're going to saving the final image at 1 anyway if your using lwf? So just toggle the srgb button to see the gamma applied?

 

Just a question?

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

but don't you think if we stop searching new ideas or concepts which seems promising, we will stop improving? In that way like in the old days when we use the scanline renderer. At that time also our clients were satisfied with the results, then comes vray and GI solution. If we did not learned them, do you think those photo realism can be achieved as we do now days?

 

By all means don't stop learning. Just be aware that LWF is not the be all end all that the industry made it out to be a few years go. It is a method, and a good one, but it alone isn't going to make your work better, though it will help you get to a certain point.

 

The truth is, I don't know a single person on this board that work in true LWF. Not one. True LWF would require a monitor calibrated to a gamma of 1.0, and all textures to be created a gamma of 1.0. What we work in might be more appropriately called gamma corrected space. Since we are adjusting gammas to simulate LWF, and not actually working with a LWF.

 

So we are already fudging things to get them the way we like, and the way we think works best. Even when we work in our prescribed methods of LWF.

[archigem]

Why are you using 2.2 in the colour mapping with don't affect colours ticked? Why not just leave it at 1 with don't affect colour unpicked.

 

You're going to saving the final image at 1 anyway if your using lwf? So just toggle the srgb button to see the gamma applied?

 

Just a question?

 

Thanks Dav, actually I've found this piece of information

http://www.pbviz.com/forum/Topic1812-9-1.aspx

in which Tom suggested that it will give more nicer image.

Also I do not believe in everything, which is found on net about the lwf cause there are a lots of different opinion. But (it's seems) he knows about it. And the same question arrived to me when I tried it, and left me with the doubts.

 

That's the reason I am here searching for the opinions of you people.

[archigem]

By all means don't stop learning. Just be aware that LWF is not the be all end all that the industry made it out to be a few years go. It is a method, and a good one, but it alone isn't going to make your work better, though it will help you get to a certain point.

 

The truth is, I don't know a single person on this board that work in true LWF. Not one. True LWF would require a monitor calibrated to a gamma of 1.0, and all textures to be created a gamma of 1.0. What we work in might be more appropriately called gamma corrected space. Since we are adjusting gammas to simulate LWF, and not actually working with a LWF.

 

So we are already fudging things to get them the way we like, and the way we think works best. Even when we work in our prescribed methods of LWF.

 

Thanks Travis, now I am getting the point. Right now I could not completely rely on it. (although I'll keep practicing and exploring it ).

Yes I agree with ur statement about the gamma corrected space and LWF, that both are different. Whatever I read about it, there are two things which always comes to my mind:

 

one is that we use gamma to view the image in every monitor (obviously gamma corrected) as it meant to be. And also will be able to print it as it shows up on the screen!

 

And other one is, it use to provide the mid-tones (not brightness) in to the image to reduce the number of lights and produce the real life like lighting.

 

I may not be completely correct in technical terms, but I suppose you can understand that we actually more concern about the second one. Although the first one is also important as the other but once we have a good image, then I do not think that it make any big impact on the client cause different monitor can change the tone of complete picture -like warmer or cooler, but a good image will remain good.

 

I'd also like to know your suggestions about the second part and what do you think about the "don't affect color" option?

 

I found it on vray manual :

Don't affect colors (adaptation only) - when this parameter is on, the color mapping will not be applied to the final image, however V-Ray will proceed with all its calculations as though color mapping is applied (e.g. the noise levels will be corrected accordingly). This can be useful, for example, if you know that you will apply some color correction to the image later on, but wish to keep the rendering itself in linear space for compositing purposes. Note that the Clamp output option will have an effect regardless of the value of the Don't affect colors option.