carlonarducci Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I am working on open exr format on savings vray, but I still don't match like .png or .jepg the gamma settings I set max output to 1,0 I use to bake in vray I do not allow sRGB space view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlonarducci Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think is something related to Photoshop opening .exr files,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Penaloza Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 you need to save 2.2 if you are saving low dynamic range images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharthkolte Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Select sRGB output in the Vray Frame Buffer, Also when you take the EXR to Photoshop you must do ToneMapping to get the shading that you desire... try using ArionFX... or follow this thread to get the most out of your exr output... http://forums.cgarchitect.com/77589-achieving-photographic-look-tutorial.html http://bertrand-benoit.com/blog/2015/01/07/the-photographic-look/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Beaulieu Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I know all math and every article ever written, as well as anyone in the know will disagree with your statement, but I think I agree with you. I just never feel like I get what I am looking for with EXR. I render both EXR and 16 bit TIFF. I just feel better with 16 bit TIFF. People I work with render EXR and love it. They get great results and they would disagree too, but for me, I always go 16 bot TIFF. Maybe its me, maybe its my PS settings, but I just prefer 16 bit TIFFS. I don't know the answer, I just know that I agree, I use different settings than you posted, but it must be our PS settings. Or maybe its just opinion. For me, I'll continue with Tiffs. you do what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharthkolte Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I know all math and every article ever written, as well as anyone in the know will disagree with your statement, but I think I agree with you. I just never feel like I get what I am looking for with EXR. I render both EXR and 16 bit TIFF. I just feel better with 16 bit TIFF. People I work with render EXR and love it. They get great results and they would disagree too, but for me, I always go 16 bot TIFF. Maybe its me, maybe its my PS settings, but I just prefer 16 bit TIFFS. I don't know the answer, I just know that I agree, I use different settings than you posted, but it must be our PS settings. Or maybe its just opinion. For me, I'll continue with Tiffs. you do what you want. I too use 16bit TIFF's most of the time as I have tight deadlines so mostly I use Photoshop to do minor CC and details to the render. But to get ultimate control over your renders you need to export 32bit EXR's. With the 32bit renders you can play with the intensity of lighting in Photoshop so even if your raw render is dark in Photoshop you can bring up the lighting values to get a more realistic feel. I usually use the 32bit EXR if there is requirement for an Ultra-realistic render. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The problem with .exr isn't the format, it's photoshops complete and utter lack of support for it, aside from at its most basic level. Want to bring in the zdepth pass you saved with it? Tough luck, need a third party plugin for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomasEsperanza Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The problem with .exr isn't the format, it's photoshops complete and utter lack of support for it, aside from at its most basic level. Want to bring in the zdepth pass you saved with it? Tough luck, need a third party plugin for that. I concur; you need this plug-in in order to access all the capabilities of OpenEXR from within Adobe Photoshop: http://www.fnordware.com/ProEXR/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 This is why for still images I think the .DNG (digital negative) should be the de-facto standard; all we need now is support from Autodesk and/or choasgroup, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomasEsperanza Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Hmm, ".DNG" ... not really looked into that one... time for to Google it me thinks. Nope, having read up on .dng somewhat, I'm inclined to suggest .exr would be more fit for our Arch-Viz purposes. .dng appears to more photographer oriented format. Whereas .exr (was developed by ILM) is widely used in TV, Film, and VFX. Plus personally I have found (for compositing either stills or animations), to have your render passes stored within one file is handy. ' Could not find any online reference to this kind of layer support for .dng... Edited January 19, 2015 by TomasEsperanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlonarducci Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 8 px bucket seems to work!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomasEsperanza Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 8 px bucket seems to work!!! Eh? that was random - ' You got the right thread Dude? () Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliviecharbonneau Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think Carlo was answering my suggestion in this thread : http://forums.cgarchitect.com/77641-blocked-bucket-im.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlonarducci Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 aahhaha sorry. wrong post!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Nope, having read up on .dng somewhat, I'm inclined to suggest .exr would be more fit for our Arch-Viz purposes. I am not saying abandon .exr, but being into photography I'm so used to processing with RAW files (which is essentially what a .DNG is) that it makes sense to use them, especially as they are an open source/licence thing that any software company could adopt. .dng appears to more photographer oriented format. Whereas .exr (was developed by ILM) is widely used in TV, Film, and VFX. Yes. Photoshop, camera raw, etc were developed with photographers in mind too and look how ubiquitous they have become within the industry. Plus personally I have found (for compositing either stills or animations), to have your render passes stored within one file is handy. ' Could not find any online reference to this kind of layer support for .dng... I can't disagree with this at all except for the fact that .exr render passes aren't readable in photoshop. Perhaps Adobe would consider an update whereby the file can store additional channels of information. Perhaps workflows change in such a way that .DNG is used for stills and .exr for animations? The problem is that we've been waiting (quite literally) years for full .exr support in photoshop and it has never happened - and there appears to be absolutely no drive to see it happen either so we're left with two options; 1) Pressure Autodesk/Chaos Group to support .DNG 2) Pressure Adobe to bring full .exr support to photoshop Or both, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliviecharbonneau Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Raw / DNG files are 10 to 12 bit per channel. EXR is 8 or 16 or 32 bpc + all passes buit-in. So no real competition here. We can use EXRs in Photoshop (totaly lame with EXRs by default indeed) with ProEXR for 75$, or use ProEXR for free in After Effects. http://www.fnordware.com/ProEXR/ I think it's pretty good and I would never wait for DNG support in VRay or for full EXR support in PS since it can happen anytime between tomorrow and never Also for non-commercial use this is going to be absolutely beautifull and free : http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke/non-commercial/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Penaloza Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I though the original question of Carlos was about gamma, not about capabilities of EXR or PNG or JPG. I don't think there is any reason to start a competition between EXR or DNG, they are developed for complete different reasons. can't argue much about EXR in Photoshop, because EXR where not designed for photo work, they where designed by ILM to manage theirs giant CG image data, several passes, linear workflow in their complex compositing software. Yes we can use those files too, I use all the time, no problems at all. But remember Photoshop main purpose is paint application and photography, not compositing. Even the 3D tools form the latest version are designed for photo and paint workflow, not an alternative to 3D modeling or such. in reality we will only need 32Bits image in very specific instances, but since they are there I use all the time, but there is not reason to just save 16 Bits EXR, with baked gamma or not, now ask yourself if you bake the gamma and exposure, why you would save in 32Bits? 16 is more than enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliviecharbonneau Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Yes apparently 16 bpc is good enought in the vast majority of cases and is used in VFX. 32 bpc is an insane amount of color data and probably needed only in some specific scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Let's start with simple solution to the original problem OP has : OpenEXR (both "16" and 32bit) is floating point format in 1.0 gamma space). "Baking workflow" (Vray mode= "Gamma and Colormapping" ), IS NOT linear but regular gamma 2.2 space (that's also why it doesn't need to "sRGB (2.2)" button for preview in framebuffer". So to get identical information you would have to save your OpenEXR as 0.454 (reverse gamma...), which is obviously, stupid thing to do. So save as your regular gamma 2.2 formats of your choice (and it doesn't matter at all what it is, DNG/PNG/TIFF/JPEG/...) Also, 16bit OpenExr has nothing to do with 16bit 2.2 Gamma formats. They just have the same name, 16bit exr is only shortened (half) floating spectrum, to save on space (harddisk space...). They both provide unlocked linear file (ability to change linearly exposure and composite directly). 16bit gamma 2.2 formats have only broader tonal spectrum, but are not linear. The only issue Photoshop currently (latest CC build) has with exr, is that it can't directly extract embedded data (like layers for example). It has no issue with gamma or anything else. Everything else is user's issues, and complicated nomenclature on Vray's side (the 3 color modes are cool feature to cheat sampling but still get linear file, but it wasn't explained clearly so most people just don't understand it). Edited January 19, 2015 by RyderSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 This is also why gamma settings in CGI apps need to die. They're no longer relevant and we could do perfectly fine without them. 1998 and CRT monitors can take them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlonarducci Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Even if our SOA meeting was not the best I must admit Juray here clarify very well the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now