Hi all

I want to render a  panoramic image in vue to use on an enviromental sphere in poser.

Does anyone know how to gauge the sizing, for example if I want to render a 1000x1000 image what is the best size to render the panoramic image at.

I am doing it at 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically so it will fill the whole sphere and the image is 2:1 ratio.

Thanks

PS I have put this in poser forums and not vue forums as ultimately I want to use the image in poser

oh heck, that big!! lol

I've got all the other settings but didn't realise it would need to be 8000 x 4000.  Better restart the render (which was at 2000x1000 lol )

Cheers

Don't forget that the area covered by the EnvSphere is huge. If the 'background' created by the EnvSphere won't be visible, or if an out of focus look would make sense, then low res would be OK. But even at 8000px it will look a little fuzzy with focal lengths over 50mm.

The panorama images provides with his EnvSphere measure 2800x1400 for a whole sphere.  I know I have had problems loading images that were too large.  Even with a high res, you will need a wider angle settings to sharpen the image.

Well, it should be twice as wide as it is high ;).

As for size, I use some hdrs that are HUGE...lol

Laurie

I get a warning at 8000x4000 as my pc is slow, I've removed the clouds and reduce the haze and fog and will have to render the sky seperately (not gonna look good i know but this is just a tester to begin with)  Any bigger than that it wont work on rendering and will probably crash, oh i wanna new sooper dooper pc.

If I recall correctly, MonkeyCloud was heading down this path, and when he rendered for effect (final size) it was a many-days render - at least 2 days, but I feel like it was four.

There is a reason you pay for these images.

hborre said

Quote - The panorama images provides with his EnvSphere measure 2800x1400 for a whole sphere

What are you referring to here? I do not provide any images with my EnvSphere. I never pursued the copyrights to anything and I can't make any. If I did provide any, they would be a lot bigger than 2800.

I don't like using less than 10,000 if I'm going to "see" it directly.

Quote - If I recall correctly, MonkeyCloud was heading down this path, and when he rendered for effect (final size) it was a many-days render - at least 2 days, but I feel like it was four.

There is a reason you pay for these images.

---

I don't like using less than 10,000 if I'm going to "see" it directly.

:crying: Think I will give up now, lol. I can't do that size on my present pc, maybe something to think about in the distant future

Think it's back to bog standard backgrounds .....

Thanks all for clarification.

Quote - > Quote - If I recall correctly, MonkeyCloud was heading down this path, and when he rendered for effect (final size) it was a many-days render - at least 2 days, but I feel like it was four.

There is a reason you pay for these images.

---

I don't like using less than 10,000 if I'm going to "see" it directly.

:crying: Think I will give up now, lol. I can't do that size on my present pc, maybe something to think about in the distant future

Think it's back to bog standard backgrounds .....

Thanks all for clarification.

Can you maybe disable the opengl view and stuff in Vue so you have more free ram? I have Vue 7 Frontier, but I took it off my machine a long time ago, so it's been awhile ;) Maybe use just wireframe or something?

Laurie

I am rendering to disc which i think helps and it's really just an ecosystem (well ecopaint on billboard preview) I was doing a fairly easy scene with trees in the eco but still got a warning. I haven't been using vue for that long, probably a month so maybe there are settings I am not quite sure of at the moment which will help.

BB just found the thread, it was monkeycloud http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3965105&ebot_calc_page#message_3965105

I might try rendering a lower res one and  play around using it on lights.

@ BB:  You're right and I apologize.  I checked back and they were actual downloads from one of your links.  I acquired those a long time back and completely forgot they were separate d/l's. DUH!!

I've usually gone with 4000 x 2000, output from Vue, as a "happy" medium. Takes about a day usually, on my kit, at "broadcast" resolution. Perfectly adequate for cloudscapes unless you're really zooming in on a portion, in which case, do you actually need the whole thing?

12000 x 6000 was the max I've tried, and it took a week... well, six days. It was in the centre of a model of the Louvre though, so wasn't just sky that was being rendered.

That was rendering using the batch renderer in Vue though, which is slower, but doesn't consume all the system resource. I didn't want my imac to melt... and I was still able to use it for most other stuff while the render was running.

After something BB suggested / mentioned, next image I try this for, I'm planning to do it differently... I will do two Vue renders I think.

EDIT: Yup... in that thread you linked to, indeed!

A 4000 x 2000 (or potentially smaller) spherical panorama, at "final" resolution, to serve the IDL and distant reflections from behind the camera.

Then a render of just the Vue scene that I want in front of the camera, a little more panoramic than will be needed for the angle of the camera in my Poser scene. I'll put this on a slightly concave, rectangular prop, behind the Poser scene.

I could have done this with the Louvre example... probably could have got a better result.

I'm generally not using the Vue render to represent anything too close to the camera... using poser sets for that.

Cheers

EDIT: ...also there are some Vue rendered panoramas in my gallery, and the higher res versions can be downloaded here:

http://bananas.monkeycloud.net/panoramas/beta/

I've made a few HDRI type spherical images in vue for my comic that have turned out quite well.

eg this one.

Love esther

M.C. I think I will try the flat image on a plane with image lighting, it will be far quicker and it isnt for animation so should be fine for just a flat image.  Estherau, that looks good, my pc wont render that big as it crashes :(

What should I look out for concerning lighting quality? Does higher res equal better indirect lighting for example?

Vestmann, welcome back!!!

Quote - What should I look out for concerning lighting quality? Does higher res equal better indirect lighting for example?

Not at all. It means when you "photograph" the sphere it will look more detailed at higher res than lower res.

Quote - Vestmann, welcome back!!!

Thanks ;)

Quote - > Quote - What should I look out for concerning lighting quality? Does higher res equal better indirect lighting for example?

Not at all. It means when you "photograph" the sphere it will look more detailed at higher res than lower res.

Ok. So since I always hide the sphere from the camera, resolution shouldn't be a major concern for me?

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - What should I look out for concerning lighting quality? Does higher res equal better indirect lighting for example?

Not at all. It means when you "photograph" the sphere it will look more detailed at higher res than lower res.

Ok. So since I always hide the sphere from the camera, resolution shouldn't be a major concern for me?

For purposes of lighting, no.

For purposes of reflections, maybe. Not for highly curved props. But flat props would cause you to see the sky just as you would with the camera. A flat metal with a mirror-like finish will reveal the detail or lack thereof. So would a calm water surface. Or window glass.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - > Quote - What should I look out for concerning lighting quality? Does higher res equal better indirect lighting for example?

Not at all. It means when you "photograph" the sphere it will look more detailed at higher res than lower res.

Ok. So since I always hide the sphere from the camera, resolution shouldn't be a major concern for me?

For purposes of lighting, no.

For purposes of reflections, maybe. Not for highly curved props. But flat props would cause you to see the sky just as you would with the camera. A flat metal with a mirror-like finish will reveal the detail or lack thereof. So would a calm water surface. Or window glass.

Ok. Thanks.

Quote - If I recall correctly, MonkeyCloud was heading down this path, and when he rendered for effect (final size) it was a many-days render - at least 2 days, but I feel like it was four.

There is a reason you pay for these images.

---

hborre said

Quote - The panorama images provides with his EnvSphere measure 2800x1400 for a whole sphere

What are you referring to here? I do not provide any images with my EnvSphere. I never pursued the copyrights to anything and I can't make any. If I did provide any, they would be a lot bigger than 2800.

I don't like using less than 10,000 if I'm going to "see" it directly.

Where does one find such large HDR images? I never have, at any rate. :/

Attached Link: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewthread/7264/P15

Love esther

dosch sells an hi-res hdri pak, but I've got one and they're only approx 6400X3200.  there's another group that sells 10000X5000 and those are the biggest I've seen.  google search hdri - there's a belgian group aversis which sells the latter.   what I would like are 19200X9600, but who ya gonna ask?  one would not need one of those with an empty poser scene with nude girl.  for that, a lo-res jpg multiplied by hsv value 4 is more than enough IMVHO.

the ones I got from dosch - city at night - have huge ones.  They have a range of different sizes of the same things.

Kleanzlate! Nice to see you again! Any more work on teeth shaders?

Quote - > Quote - Vestmann, welcome back!!!

 

Thanks ;)

http://www.hdrlabs.com/sibl/archive.html

Some of these are rather large. You can't use em commercially tho, but you can use em for your personal renders.

Laurie

Cool. Thanks for this

I should go out and take some HDR panoramas. Maybe I'll even manage to shoot something people can use.

If you're not looking at the EnvSphere, just using it for lighting and for blurry reflections, then any image AT ALL works. Does not have to be HDR, does not have to be equirectangular, does not have to be a panorama.

Here I am using a photo of my daughter's rugby team as the EnvSphere panoramic image.

The scene meets the criteria - no flat sharp reflections, no direct viewing.

The rugby photo makes a fine light source under these conditions.

It works because generally speaking the top half is brighter than the bottom half, and the top half is close to white.

But if you're looking for unusual lighting, then literally any image works.

I hope also, that you understand I used a photo just to shock you into realizing the contents don't matter. Just as well, you could draw some totally crappy doodle image in MS Paint and use that for lighting.

Like this.

"http://www.hdrlabs.com/sibl/archive.html

Some of these are rather large. You can't use em commercially tho, but you can use em for your personal renders."

IIRC, most if not all of the SIBL sets have three images, one for the background, a smaller one for lighting and a blurred one for reflections - very convenient. 

Yep, they do :)

Laurie

If I use an image that has too great sharp a transition from dark to light, eye reflections often look weird to me.

I thought we were talking about using spherical panoramas as actual background images.

Quote - I thought we were talking about using spherical panoramas as actual background images.

We have been, but Vestmann asked:

Quote - So since I always hide the sphere from the camera, resolution shouldn't be a major concern for me?

which extended the discussion to what the OP's questions actually means to other people.

Further, even if you see the EnvSphere, what you "need" depends on field of view and subject and render image size. If all you see is a bit of sky in a scene background otherwise dominated by buildings or trees, the reasonable answer clearly is "it depends".

This thread, page 2 has some interesting info about EnvSphere resolution and what you "need".

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2789342&page=2

Example:

me: It's width that matters. How big do you want your final render to be in width, and at what focal length?

witchdidi: Width would be 1500 px at 60mm with no blur.

me: You're not going to like this.  The panorama should be 22506 wide and 11253 tall.

Page 1 is interesting too, but is discussing manipulation of brightness and contrast.

Cool. Thanks for the link. :)

That does suggest that at higher resolutions, a panoramic image on a large sphere might not be the most efficient way to get the desired effect if you're wanting an unblurred background -- eta -- unless you like stitching together 20 images into a 250 megapixel monster of a panorama. I could do it, but then I'd have to render it. Point taken.

An example of where I clearly failed to use enough resolution:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?image_id=1840092

The sphere image is 4100 pix wide.

You probably just need the section you'll see as the background portion at the high resolution.

The more "staged" set up I was contemplating was aimed at addressing this.

If you're stitching photos, maybe there's a way of stitching at higher density for the portion you'll have a background? But lower density elsewhere?

Likewise I expect in Vue one could render the whole spherical panorama at lower res, then a portion at the higher res, then blow up the low res spherical panorama to the size of the full hi res, maybe blur it a bit, and then overlay the hi res portion, at the correct place?

Would involve more postwork of the panorama texture... but would save a lot of render time I expect? Plus some maths to calculate the angles / proportions to render the high res portion at, so that it is a tile on the surface of the total sphere...

For this image, I didn't even try. I used EnvSphere for reflections, but an ordinary rectangular photo for background.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?image_id=1840594

Maybe in the hi res / Lo res hybrid Vue render idea, one could render a quadrant of the sphere hi res... might be simpler to work out the angles and line up overlaying it then?

Quote - Would involve more postwork of the panorama texture... but would save a lot of render time I expect? Plus some maths to calculate the angles / proportions to render the high res portion at, so that it is a tile on the surface of the total sphere...

I really don't think that is worth the effort.

In my last post I link to a render where the EnvSphere and the background rectangle had no match at all, other than they were both photographed in daylight outdoors on earth, from the air.

You can't see edge reflections clearly enough to pick out where one background ended and the other began.

The EnvSphere was the same kite photo as the previous image I linked to.

Quote - For this image, I didn't even try. I used EnvSphere for reflections, but an ordinary rectangular photo for background.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?image_id=1840594

 

This is probably all that's needed for realism in a lot of scenarios I would guess...