In order to get a decent render out of the EnvSphere, I basically need the same image on the sphere and on my IBL light, is that correct?

I think I've been banging my head against the wall for a few hours because I've been using all sorts of IBLs and it never looks right.

Just as an aside, I did this with my recent image "Outhouse encounter", in order to get the effect of the light coming from the doorway and the back window.

The image on the EnvSphere is a special panoramic image which unfolds onto the EnvSphere inner surface, while the one on the IBL needs to be an IBL light probe version of the same scene. (I think I'm getting the terminology correct... if not, someone please put me right).

For some reason, I had to rotate the EnvSphere by 180 degrees to get the background to line up with the IBL lighting. I meant to ask bb about that, but I forgot.

Yeah, that's what I meant - I knew I couldn't use the panoramic image straight up on the IBL (I have BB's Generate IBL prop).

Thanks!

Now I come to think of it, bb once said something like:

"All light probes are backwards. Don't argue with me".

I must find that thread again. Maybe this is why I had to rotate the EnvSphere by 180 degrees.

I wasn't using one of his light probes. Those you get out of his IBL generator will surely be the right way round!

Yes, I've seen that comment. Actually, I don't think he said the light probes were backward. He said that most environment spheres were backward.

But since he created both the sphere and the IBL generator I'm using, this came out right. :)

could you please post your image? i am hell of curious :D
i did the procedure once but the result didnt overwhelm me... nothing against bills stuff, its great and his discussion on the mentioned thread kind of amused me crouch
what i mean is i did something wrong, since its all so sigh difficult :(

Are you talking about my IBL, or the image I'm rendering with the sphere & IBL set? If the latter, I just did a small one to test; am running a large high quality one right now.

the complete render ;)
i did the create a probe from envysphere procedure last time and then sat a vicky right in (big mistake since now i now that the blue of her skin makes her fishy... i believe you read about my problem g)- she looked so... fumbled in.
i would love to see the ready result, since especially now i moved on and my new task (i sure will be bogging all of you with silly questions soon;)) is to learn more about lights g

happy rendering :)

Okay, here's the render. I'd say I've had better renders from this character (it's one of my own in progress), but I think it turned out pretty well. (Click for full size.)

Of course, I should add that the image used on the sphere is too small to look good when rendered like that. If I were to treat this as a final image, I'd postwork some additional blur into the background to hide that blockiness.

OTOH, I suppose one could try upsampling the original panorama in Photoshop before applying it to the sphere... but I think that would come at the cost of considerable render time.

You could possibly load the background image onto a flat plane and position it behind your model.  That should provide the clarity and sharpness you require. 

Question: are you using additional lighting for your render?

Other than the IBL?

At the moment, there are three lights:

1. The IBL @100% (RGB range: .420-.435)

2. Spot @40% (RGB range: .540-.570) with raytraced shadows and AO. Shadow strength: .820. Shadow blur radius .2. Shadow min bias is .8, which is probably too high.

3. Infinite @80% (RGB .730-.790), AO but no shadows.

Spot and IBL are very close together. Infinite is a few degrees away.

Recommendations?

Using a plane would probably work... to get the right positioning to match the lighting might be a bit tricky though (my lights are the same as when I rendered the IBL from off the sphere).

Usually the Infinite light handles the shadow load while the Spot lights just fill and brightens without shadow effect.  I set my IBL with AO, the only light in my set with that setting.  Your render looks great though the eyes could use a little more brightness.  Actually, your background could go a little darker than your model.  Especially if it has some distance to it and remains slightly blurred.  It would have that depth of field look.

Thanks, hborre. Am presently working on my bump again for the time being, so no time to play with the render settings right now, but here's a render I ran just after the one above - same settings, just different angle. (Click for full size.)

Very nice.  The IBL could be toned down a bit but the eyes are coming to life.

have you raytraced enabled in the render settings? 

I always have raytracing enabled. I usually forget to shut it off even for draft renders. :-p

i am asking because i see no AO and no shadows in your renders.

I'm using them. Sometimes I have to use them less than I want to because of artifacts, but I'm using them.

i like the picture... especially its not looking flat. mine always look twodimensional with ibl over 40%.... hm.
but what is rgb range?
anyway thanks for posting the picture :D

RGB range is the values set on the light colours. On the Parameters tab, under the "Other" category, you'll see Red, Green, Blue as well as Shadow, Map Size and Intensity.

Quote - i like the picture... especially its not looking flat. mine always look twodimensional with ibl over 40%.... hm.

She's using an IBL image made with my tools. That means it is linear not sRGB so it doesn't overlight the scene.

Many of the IBL probes you get on the net or you buy are wrong. They aren't linear color space, so you can't turn them up because they fill everything. You have to fix those. Or throw them away and make your own using my GenIBL tool.

Once you have an IBL probe that is properly constructed, it can be turned way up because that dark parts won't overshoot.

I have to travel today so can't play much, and not at all this morning.

However, I could help with your lighting if you shared your lights and your IBL probe. You should be able to since you made it. Most of the equirectangular images on flickr are released under a Creative Commons license which permits distribution of derivative works. An IBL probe would be a derivative work.

So if you save your light set as a library file, and email/post/upload your setup somewhere, I can work with it exactly. There are many variables here. I think it would be instructive for me to produce some renders using my light sets versus your light set and see what we see.

That sounds kewl... I'll try to figure out where I can upload this to accessibly but securely.

Edit: Won't be all that soon though... I've got a pretty heavy render ongoing at the moment.

Well, I never did get that lightset put together, at least not yet. Been busy trying to do something for Antonia. I did finally get a render of this scene that I was reasonably happy with though... I was fighting AO artifacts all the time, was the problem. (Had one render that was running for hours and hours before I killed it - the artifacts were absolutely awful. I sure hope they have this fixed for Poser 8 or whatever the next pro version is.) Finally decided I'm not gonna try to put AO on more than one light in a scene.

(click for full size)

If you use light-based AO , the only light it should be on is an IBL.

If you're using material-based AO, then don't use light-based AO at all.

MBAO is better quality, gives you localized control, and only runs where you need it to. All of those advantages are made pointless if you use a light-based AO as well, plus it takes twice as long to render.

I think your figure needs 5% more green. It looks red to me.

Thanks! You're talking about the texture or the shader?

How would I know? I know that the render is the product of the color map and the VSS shader. Either could be adjusted to remove some red.

I started to write a quick answer, and erased it. This is a complex subject. I would give different advice depending on how you answer these questions:

1. Is the color map too red (subjective, I know, but I could judge if I saw it)
   2) Do you intend to render the color map without GC and without SSS? (Ala, traditional Poser.) If so, how does that look?

Certainly you can adjust this in VSS for your map. I have to do the same for the map of GND4. It has too much pink built in, so I remove a lot with the VSS tint parameter.

As I look at the texture, it doesn't look too red to me. But perhaps I need to look at it next to textures from a few other characters.

Ultimately, I want to distribute this character, so I do hope to get her to a place where she'll look good for those people who don't use GC and SSS too.

her skin looks to red IMO
i think you should use reference images from real people.

Quote - As I look at the texture, it doesn't look too red to me. But perhaps I need to look at it next to textures from a few other characters.

Ultimately, I want to distribute this character, so I do hope to get her to a place where she'll look good for those people who don't use GC and SSS too.

why wouldnt people use GC and fake SSS? 

Daz Studio, and Poser ignorati

some people still think that GC is something you add. thats because they were using poser without GC for years. like it something ''fansy''

The skintone looks good.  I think the light intensity is a bit overpowering.  Are you using a second light in your render?  I see a hint of redness over the right shoulder.  (Our left)

Thanks, hborre. There are multiple lights, although intensities aren't all that high. But all lights are neutral in terms of RGB values.