Physical Camera vs normal camera..

[Sherif Massoud]

Hi,

 

Just want to know the best option for exterior/interior animations is to use

physical camera or normal camera?

[John Dollus]

normal camera gives you more flexibility but you have to remember to add the vray physical camera exposure control under the environment.

[Francisco Penaloza]

There is NOT best option.

just options.

[John Dollus]

Francisco is quite correct. If you are looking for a one and only process,you will quickly find you are in the wrong business

[Sherif Massoud]

Yes ofcourse you are both right, I just meant which is better in general?? but I know that I may need one in particular situation and the other in other situation, sure there is no one settings for all visualizations.

[notamondayfan]

For me vray camera has advantages over standard as the exposure, white balance, and vertical correction are inside the camera, rather than outside. I find this makes it easier, especially in animations where you might want to animate the values inside the camera.

 

Dean

[Chris MacDonald]

I always use the vray camera, the flexibility of it is sensational. The ONLY time I use the standard camera (always in conjunction with the vray exposure control) is when I am doing completely flat elevations/orthographic views, and that is it.

[notamondayfan]

I always use the vray camera, the flexibility of it is sensational. The ONLY time I use the standard camera (always in conjunction with the vray exposure control) is when I am doing completely flat elevations/orthographic views, and that is it.

 

Sometimes I like to rebel and use the vray camera, but turn off exposure. Take that vray!

[RyderSK]

Imho the only notable difference now is easy 'Shift' tool. Well worth it.

 

Exposure and WhiteBalance per camera is something I never used anyway because I adjust both in post. I've kept it under Exposure tab always so I could do quick test renders from viewport.

[heni30]

I don't understand why it has both iso AND shutter speed. More confusion. The only time you would use shutter speed in the real world would be it you wanted something sharp and you were afraid of moving (high speed) or if you wanted to intentionally use a low speed to get a an artistic blur (the way renderings fake people and car blurs in Photoshop.

 

I used to do candid shots of people on the street with a Leica (those Germans know how to make precise stuff (Mies)) and it wasn't even a SLR (always shot quickly so careful framing was not an issue) . 35 mm lens at f-16 always gave you max depth of field (you could forget about focus) so you just played with the shutter speed, period.

 

It's fun to pan with a fast car or bike rider at a low speed - subject is sharp - background a horizontal blur.

Edited April 24, 2014 by heni30

[Chris MacDonald]

I don't understand why it has both iso AND shutter speed. More confusion.

 

You're saying in one breath having camera settings in vray is confusing, but having them on a real camera isn't?

 

ISO is a part of photography, and thus a part of a render engine that simulates light. I really don't understand what is confusing about it? How else would you do an animation with motion blur and get the exposure right?

[heni30]

I didn't realize they'd brought film iso grain issues into digital. You'd think think that if they can come up with lights that exclude objects, they

could simplify exposure settings.

[notamondayfan]

The ISO in the vray camera isn't to control noise like it is in the real world, instead it's more there to simulate a real camera exposure.

[heni30]

I guess that was my point - if you can control exposure through ISO and aperture is only for dof, why do you need shutter speed (other than to make it feel more like a real camera)?

[Chris MacDonald]

For motion blur.

[heni30]

I guess I'm just thinking from my own perspective where I only do interiors and never use dof nor motion blur. I'd rather control image brightness through light multipliers and Photoshop.

[RyderSK]

If one doesn't match DOF/Motion blur to real footage for physicall correctness of real-life lenses and shutters, it's there simply for convenience of photographers who like to think in real life measures they learned and use in photography.

 

People like myself, who picked CGI first, and photography afterwards, do use purely much more comfortable and logical multipliers with unlocked DOF/MB as separate multipliers, with zero connection to photography controls (which act as the very same single thing, and make adjusting DOF in artistic way only as hindrance, as unlocked DOF is much more preferable, something real photographers only dream of and go to extreme measure to overcome...but CGI folks often emulate stuff for zero reason to death...see ChromaAbbe'....).

 

Well, there are some special people who think it does make difference if you use ISO parameter in CGI but....those are everywhere.

And then...some people obsess too much about it as well, but, that is the very standard of archviz.

[Tommy L]

The camera settings give an aggregate exposure, you could do it via a multiplier much more simply, but the reasons to have these settings out weigh the reasons not to.

One reason (in addition to the ones mentioned above) is that you can match settings from meta-data in existing photography to match a plate. Digital cameras will not give you an exposure multiplier to match, just the result of available light on the sensor - as a result of the camera settings. Therefore, to reverse engineer, you need the VrayCamera settings.

[victorrodriguez]

hello