Quote - No this is the problem pjz99 and I have been discussing for months. The artifacts are due to a geometry interpretation difference between the part of Poser that deals with ray-tracing and the part that deals with rendering.

We've found it possible to get rid of them using the artistic lens, because that makes prevents Poser from using its REYES renderer for anything.. The whole render is a pure ray-trace.

Using more samples would only make it track those internal discrepancies with more precision. Which is ironic.

That would explain why I had problems rendering with the GI Studio.  It produced so much artifacts that I kept increasing samples and bounces.  It would be interesting to try it with the artistic lens...

It's a lot brighter. I didn't think those additional bounces would matter, but they do. Good to know. Interesting that render time was still under 10 minutes. I thought all those bounces would make it much longer.

Something troubles me. Why is the ceiling lit behind the glowbox, but not in front of it? Is this right? Or is it because of the walls right behind the glow box. Probably. But it just doesn't look right to me.

I changed the setup like this. Moved the rim light in front left, and the main light to front right.

Quote -
It occurs to me that it would be cool if I had a real model of a photographers reflector umbrella.

You up for modeling that Paul?

I can, and it wouldn't even be that hard, but I think the bowl prop is fine for that kind of thing unless you actually want to show the umbrella itself in a render.  I've seen a few kinds of those, some are silvered (mostly opaque) on the inside and some are translucent white cloth or plastic.

Quote - Something troubles me. Why is the ceiling lit behind the glowbox, but not in front of it? Is this right? Or is it because of the walls right behind the glow box. Probably. But it just doesn't look right to me.

Yes it looks right to me, because (bounce + bounce + bounce + bounce) > (bounce + bounce)
err, actually probably more since you have 8 bounces set there, don't you.

Quote - Something troubles me. Why is the ceiling lit behind the glowbox, but not in front of it? Is this right? Or is it because of the walls right behind the glow box. Probably. But it just doesn't look right to me.

Makes me wonder if the fall-off for bounced light calculations is correct.

Aha. Thanks dadt. It was just a matter of perspective and throwing light in all directions.

Your render demonstrates an excellent insight. If our goal is to try to maximize our control of the light distribution, then throwing light in all directions is not wise. Using a box with only one face lit is a good idea.

So now I'm thinking that I will model something. We should have a glow box with an adjustable hood, to prevent leaking light to the side as well. Now that would be worthy of selling something for $9.

More like studio lamps with light flaps.

The "insight" is probably because I used to design lighting fittings.

bookmarked for future reading....I am constantly baffled by proper lighting, this is an EXCELLENT learning tool! 

bookmarked

There is an umbrella in the Fashion Studio set from Daz.  I'M NOT SAYING PEOPLE SHOULD GO AND BUY IT :)  I´m saying I have it and I´m gonna do some tests.

I´m not a photographer but when umbrellas are used in studios the light is pointed into the umbrella isn't it?   I wonder if this would work in Poser....

bb - I notice here in the PR3 skin you went for the hybrid setup of shader GC and render time HSVexponential Tone mapping (but without the extra gain you previously posted). Is there a rason for not using the extra TM gain?

btw, really like the methods using ambiant prims to help with the lighting at the terminator - much faster than the lighting arrays I've been using.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=umbrella+light+for+photography&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0

Quote - There is an umbrella in the Fashion Studio set from Daz.  I'M NOT SAYING PEOPLE SHOULD GO AND BUY IT :)  I´m saying I have it and I´m gonna do some tests.

I´m not a photographer but when umbrellas are used in studios the light is pointed into the umbrella isn't it?   I wonder if this would work in Poser....

It does work in the sense that it happens. But the results are sloppy at low settings, and only "ok" at high settings. Remember, fast IDL means more errors. We've already seen that relying 100% on indirect illumination either means long render times or poor quality.

I say that because if you point a spotlight into a prop umbrella, it's pretty much the same as using a self-lit prop umbrella, in terms of illumination. You're not using the light directly anymore. On the other hand, it will be slower and require an extra bounce. If you were using 4, you'll need 5. My demo here is that a hybrid approach stays away from the bad part of the performance of either. Using lights only, it requires that we use an array of many lights grouped in a cluster, which is slow. Using small self-lit props only, it requires that we use 20000 samples and very little caching, which is extremely slow. Using large self-lit props allows lower sampling and faster rendering, but won't fit into interiors.

This is a hybrid approach that pretty much solves all the problems at once - good rendering quality, convincing lighting, easy placement options, and fast renders.

And it's f'ing FREE, not $9.99.

Quote - bb - I notice here in the PR3 skin you went for the hybrid setup of shader GC and render time HSVexponential Tone mapping (but without the extra gain you previously posted). Is there a rason for not using the extra TM gain?

I was excited at the performance+quality I got when I tried it so I posted it for discussion. Also, I forgot.

Quote - btw, really like the methods using ambiant prims to help with the lighting at the terminator - much faster than the lighting arrays I've been using.

Yes, it is much faster. That was why I was so excited. I didn't like the light cluster technique, I didn't like the results of glowing props alone. Hybrid seems right.

And just to be clear, others have used hybrid before, but the difference here is the light is not just a specular light. Its contribution to the diffuse is an important factor in the quality of the results and the speed.

Do you still care about a detailed umbrella, or is the bowl prop (or tube+disk, it looks like you're trying) OK?

edit: by the way an adjustable hood is something you could do pretty easily with a morph target, especially if the hood geometry is simple.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/freestuff/details.php?item_id=45371

Quote - It does work in the sense that it happens. But the results are sloppy at low settings, and only "ok" at high settings. Remember, fast IDL means more errors. We've already seen that relying 100% on indirect illumination either means long render times or poor quality.

I say that because if you point a spotlight into a prop umbrella, it's pretty much the same as using a self-lit prop umbrella, in terms of illumination. You're not using the light directly anymore. On the other hand, it will be slower and require an extra bounce. If you were using 4, you'll need 5.

My demo here is that a hybrid approach stays away from the bad part of the performance of either. Using lights only, it requires that we use an array of many lights grouped in a cluster, which is slow. Using small self-lit props only, it requires that we use 20000 samples and very little caching, which is extremely slow. Using large self-lit props allows lower sampling and faster rendering, but won't fit into interiors.

This is a hybrid approach that pretty much solves all the problems at once - good rendering quality, convincing lighting, easy placement options, and fast renders.

And it's f'ing FREE, not $9.99.

You're absolutely right.  I tried turning the light into the umbrella and it pretty much just looked like it was lit only by the self lit prop.  

But I want to make sure I have the thinking right behind your approach.  Your approach makes it possible to use spotlights with low intensity and the light prop behind it gives extra illumination and softens the shadows.  Isn't that just about right?

Bookmarked...    I have So much to learn..

Quote - After properly setting legit IDL-friendly materials on the room parts, he looks like this.

 

I was wandering what you call "legit IDL-friendly materials".  Do you do more then lowering the diffuse?  I´m talking specifically about materials for walls and surroundings...

Thank you of sharing us your experience.

Bopper.

I've been in the middle of a scene/render -- but I can't wait to try this out.

I haven't been happy with my lit props/IDL renders. So learning more as we all become accustomed to it in P8 is exciting.

I already love some of the other Poser 8 light innovations (inverse square falloff and preview), but IDL is still stumping me somewhat.

-- Jeff

Attached Link: http://www.sharecg.com/v/38961/Poser/The-Photostudio---Xtension-2

Quote - see att lnk fr umbrella smart prop.

Thank you the link!  I have that set and will good try out those umbrellas

Keep in mind, the 'reflective' part of the umbrella should be one-sided and a separate zone to work properly.  In essence, it should be like a photographers umbella without the lamp.

Hallo there Mr. BagginsBill (or anyone else for that matter),
I created some umbrella light props if you interested, just p.m. with your email and I'll send them over!

PM sent! :)  Thank you!

Recieved and sent back to ya via email!
Missy woot!

Sent you a PM.

fortunately, this is yet another case where indirect specular isn't needed.
maybe somebody will do a render to see if one bounce of a directional lite off the umbrella
is alot slower to calculate, but gives the same result as, no lite bouncing of the umbrella,
which is set with reflector face either ambient or translucent = (white, 5 or 10) e.g.

it would also be instructive if somebody could do the same render in P8 and PP2010 to see
how much better or worse tone mapping makes it look, compared to simple GC.

*"it would also be instructive if somebody could do the same render in P8 and PP2010 to see
how much better or worse tone mapping makes it look, compared to simple GC."

*Actually, Miss Nancy, that is an excellent consideration.  We're struggling now to find a cooperative medium between the two in P8 alone; it would be worthwhile if someone could make such a comparison.  Hopefully, whatever changes are implemented in PP2010 won't invalidate the whole experiment.

 Color differences. Look for the graph bagginsbill posted. Tone mapping does not produce linear output like pure gamma correction. With gamma correction you won't need to tone map. You will be able to ungamma incoming textures and gamma correct renders to have a completely linear workflow.

i saw bill's curves in the other thread.  it's obvious that it will be difficult or impossible to get
a straight line with any combination of the hsv exponential and gain functions.  but what I was
hoping to avoid, from a marketing standpoint, is for potential buyers to infer that poser 8
is obsolete, due to its use of tone-mapping.  if we could see some renders to compare the two
methods, it might encourage more users to buy poser 8 instead of waiting for PP2010.  I just
have this gut feeling that exposure control is likely to give more pleasing results, similar to
kodachrome ASA 25 slide film in a canon SLR with f /1.2 lens giving more pleasing results
than whatever negative film they use in SLR film cameras nowadays (if any are still in use).

Canon F1 or A1?

 This seems to be a discussion for the experts but I stood Jesie in front of the black wall and the render really was very good. I don't hope to learn too much from this because it over my head, but I will save the file and use it sometime. Thanks, Baginsbill :)

Hi guys. Somehow I got unsubscribed from this thread. I didn't get any notices of postings in this thread for several days now.

So - is the demo scene idea a success? Should I do more? What sort of scene? Outdoor day, bright sun? Outdoor night, full moon? 

BB I think anyone would appreciate and download just about anything you put together and make available...I vote for sunny outdoor day !

I always add lights who match environment just for the specular effect, is there nothing something new here ...

http://anthanasius.deviantart.com/art/Think-144564525

Your envsphere at 80 % and infinite light at 20 % and i've never wait this post to use this "tweak" ;-)

Wow - that came out better than my own. It shows you that texture maps contribute, too, right?

Because each texture map set is different, and since VSS tries to use the texture maps to drive the shine, it follows that the shine level must be adjusted for each texture map. Some maps have an overall higher level than others. There are no standards of luminance on these maps, as they are made by the author with custom shaders.

So - while VSS is set up to use them, it is impossible for me to pre-configure the level in the VSS Skin Template. Once you see how it looks with your texture set, you can make adjustments in Shine Level.

But the spread looks right to me, and in fact this level of shine is real if the character is supposed to be in a hot place.

Thanks for posting.

that texture actually has a lot of burned in specular.  so it's not surprising that it comes out shiny.

LAJ1 - is that the case - burned in specular? Can you set PM:Shine Level=0 and render for us?

well, by my standards, at least.  it's Milan by Danae, and i was looking at the raw texture recently to judge whether to use it for testing.  the burned in specular made me give it a pass.  but then, it's not as much as a couple of others i own, and all render well enough for just about anyone.

edited to add: almost all textures have what i would consider significant burned in specular on the eyelids, nose, cheeks, lips, neck and breasts (especially nipples).  and burned in shadow in lots of other places.  it's why texturing basics i read at CG Society advocated purely painted textures.  the author said by the time you've edited the texture to completely eliminate burned in effects, you've repainted it anyway.  of course, in a community where most can paint photoreal results, this isn't a big limitation.