Good. I'll continue as I was doing before then. I'll leave my installed LuxRender go as it is and I'll run the newest weekly build from it's unzipped folder :o).

Laurie

Oh, looks like the 1.13 version doesn't fix the exceptions when TexPolygons() or Polygons() returns None and doesn't resolve textures :-(

The dress on Angela is one of mine and is dynamic and that went over just beautifully too :o).

Laurie

Wow, great render, Laurie! that looks fabulous.

I had no luck when I tried a week or so ago... will wait until things are a bit closer to final release.

Quote - Oh, looks like the 1.13 version doesn't fix the exceptions when TexPolygons() or Polygons() returns None and doesn't resolve textures :-(

Oops, sorry! I thought we had that fixed. Unfortunately, I'm off to work in five minutes, but I'll look into this first time tonight. Are you getting essentially the same exceptions as before, or new ones?

I guess I'll have to start timestamping my pydough code or something, so you can quickly check if you're getting the latest version or not.

Quote - Here's another go at a skin material. I've cranked the translucency up big time here. What do you think? Too much red in the shadows, or just enough?

That is without a doubt some of the best looking skin I've seen yet. Would you be open to sharing how you changed the material code so that we can try it? ;oP.

Laurie

About light intensities: personally, I'm a happy camper since with the linear tone mapping I can use camera settings close to what I'm used to. The render above was done with ISO 100, exposure 1/60 and f-stop 4. When I use the sun, I have to go way down with the exposure time and f-stop, just as in real life. I like that.

It might be nice though to have some kind of auto-exposure thing for people who are not used to setting their camera manually. I haven't put much thought into this, but I assume there would be some way of gathering how much light we'd expect to see in the scene. Maybe it could go on the wish list?

Quote - It might be nice though to have some kind of auto-exposure thing for people who are not used to setting their camera manually. I haven't put much thought into this, but I assume there would be some way of gathering how much light we'd expect to see in the scene. Maybe it could go on the wish list?

I'll add it ;o).

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - Here's another go at a skin material. I've cranked the translucency up big time here. What do you think? Too much red in the shadows, or just enough?

That is without a doubt some of the best looking skin I've seen yet. Would you be open to sharing how you changed the material code so that we can try it? ;oP.

Laurie

Sure! Gotta run now, but I'll post my settings tonight.

Mind you, that was just a quick experiment, nothing sophisticated. This stuff is so easy to set up in Lux, it's not even funny. :laugh:

That is pretty much what the Reinhard/non-linear mode does.

Quote - odf, are you in the mood to look into the camera thing? 

The methode how the fov is computed seems not correct.

No, guys, the FoV is correct, the camera placement isn't.
If the focal length were different, the red ball would be bigger or smaller compared to the green thingamajig.
The problem is the camera being moved (not ton the same place).

BTW, I'm not using Lux 0.7, but a weekly (the 220810 one).

Quote - Thanks for showing this. Can you make this setup available for testing?

Sure. It's just a green thingamajig modeled by me, and a Poser hi-res ball (but I could add one myself).

If you need it, tell me, and I'll upload it somewhere.

If I were one of the developers, I would test against the official released version.  I might test against a weekly build, but I would not make any changes based on that.

Quote - Is that something the general public can use or do you have to be a programmer to get it to work? ;o)

Weeklies are much like what we download here: Code with some bug fixes. They fixed the fireflies problem, for instance, and a couple others; That's why I use them, myself.

Quote - Here's another go at a skin material. I've cranked the translucency up big time here. What do you think? Too much red in the shadows, or just enough?

This is pretty good, but honestly I think your previous image is just as close. I'd back off a bit; I think this is a little overkill. Not dramatic overkill, but overkill nonetheless - you want something in between.

IMO.

rty, we've already identified the problem. It's the aspect ration.

You've got it exactly backwards. If you move the camera about, things appear larger or smaller in relation to each other. If you change the scaling, they don't. Changing the focal length while keeping the camera in position changes the scaling, nothing else.

Quote - That is pretty much what the Reinhard/non-linear mode does.

No, that's actually quite different from what the Reinhard mode does. There's a nice little blurb about it on the Lux Wiki. In a nutshell, the linear mode apparently emulates camera controls, whereas the Reinhard mode emulates sophisticated darkroom processes based on Ansel Adams' zone system. If you have a scene with bright lights and dark shadows, and you want to be able to make out details in both the bright areas and the shadows, that's were the Reinhard mode comes into play. But my understanding is that one still has to find the right settings.

I'm simply looking for the exporter to come up with an automated estimate for the exposure time in linear mode, so that people are encouraged to use that mode.

Quote - No No No -  build (0.7RC3) is NOT the official version. It's a release candidate (RC). It's published to find errors. If no more errors are reported they will make this build the official one.

Version 0.7 RC3 is the release candidate of version 0.7. Meaning that version 0.7 came after version 0.7 RC3. I know it is confusing, I had a moment's doubt myself.

The point is, people, disregard anything mentioning 0.7 RC3: It's old history

Quote - > Quote - Here's another go at a skin material. I've cranked the translucency up big time here. What do you think? Too much red in the shadows, or just enough?

This is pretty good, but honestly I think your previous image is just as close. I'd back off a bit; I think this is a little overkill. Not dramatic overkill, but overkill nonetheless - you want something in between.

IMO.

Sounds about right.

Quote -
The point is, people, disregard anything mentioning 0.7 RC3: It's old history

I second that motion.

Maybe an electronic lightmeter in the GUI?  Then of course you have to decide what type of lightmeter you want.

Quote - rty, we've already identified the problem. It's the aspect ration.

Huh? Sorry I'm replying as I read.
Well, I'm happy you've identified the problem. Tell me in which version it's supposed to be fixed so I test it again.

Quote - You've got it exactly backwards. If you move the camera about, things appear larger or smaller in relation to each other. If you change the scaling, they don't. Changing the focal length while keeping the camera in position changes the scaling, nothing else.

Not sure I understood what you mean. If I change the focal length (what is "scaling"?), the red ball would appear bigger or smaller compared to the green thingamajig (different perspective), since it's far away.
If I only change the camera position, the relative size of the ball remains the same (same perspective), but everything gets smaller.
And yes, I'm pretty sure, working with cameras is how I make my living for over a decade...  :-D

(Anyway, as I said, it's not about being right, it's about it working, period.)

Quote - Maybe an electronic lightmeter in the GUI?  Then of course you have to decide what type of lightmeter you want.

You have that, it's the histogram Lux includes. I sure wish real life cameras would include that one...   :-D

Guys, an autoexposure feature could easily be built into the LuxRender GUI itself. It already tells us in the bottom right corner what the exposure value (EV) actually is.

When it says EV=9, we need 1/2 the shutter speed that we needed at EV=8.

Wishlist - change the Lux Linear tone mapper to do auto-exposure. It's not hard.

Edit: There already is a linear auto exposure tone mapper - it is the Max White one. But that is a little too aggressive. It doesn't deal with the average exposure, just the brightest pixel.

Quote - Wishlist - change the Lux Linear tone mapper to do auto-exposure. It's not hard.

Yes, that would be even cooler.

Quote - And yes, I'm pretty sure, working with cameras is how I make my living for over a decade...  :-D

Try it out. Put your camera on a tripod. Don't move it around. Shoot the same scene at different focal lengths. Compare the results.

Changed on the wiki.

Laurie

By the way bagginsbill...is the wishlist on the wiki more or less what you had in mind? I was thinking that I should probably even list things I know the programmers have already discussed just in case something gets missed toward the end. At least that way, everything that's been gone over is there to reference. And it may keep people from asking for the same things over and over again ;o). If it's not working for you, let me know.

Laurie

Quote - Try it out. Put your camera on a tripod. Don't move it around. Shoot the same scene at different focal lengths. Compare the results.

Yeah, thanks, that's what I do for a living... It's like me telling you to declare a variable and then call it again - ow, look, the computer remembers it, it's almost magical, isn't it?...

Anyway, this is not a pissing contest, so just tell me which exporter version is supposed to have the fixed precise camera export, so I can test it with my test scene.
 

Quote - Yeah, thanks, that's what I do for a living... It's like me telling you to declare a variable and then call it again - ow, look, the computer remembers it, it's almost magical, isn't it?...

Look, personally I don't care what you think. Think what you want. What worries me is that people will believe your misinformation.

If you want an analogy, this is like a programmer telling a chip designer how a microprocessor works.

In short: do  the experiment or shut up.

Damn....

can we stop now?

Laurie

Quote - Look, personally I don't care what you think.

Fine, that makes two of us. I'd suggest we keep it at this. You're not required to invite me to dinner, I assure you I won't invite you, but since we're working on the same project, let's keep our mutual admiration private, and get productive*, already*.

Quote - In short: do  the experiment or shut up.

Which one? The camera-tripod one?
If that's all you have to contribute, why don't you take a vacation? It would be more beneficial, for both the project and yourself.

If per chance you mean a real experiment furthering the LuxPose exporter knowledge, my humble excuses, I missed it, could you please be so kind to repeat the instructions.

Quote - Damn....

can we stop now?

Do you take "no" for an answer?...

I have a goal, that's seeing LuxPose happening. Period.
I'm not here to brownnose anybody; bagginsbill knows it. I've called him names for his past errors, but I respect him for his recent choices: He might have a difficult character (who am I to reproach him for that), but he has proved he's not a jerk and knows when he has made an error (sorry, a "non-optimized decision"). I expect no less from the others.

Quote - Damn....

can we stop now?

Laurie

Sure! Sorry about that. I guess I'll have to produce the evidence when I get home.

Quote - > Quote - Damn....

can we stop now?

Do you take "no" for an answer?...

I have a goal, that's seeing LuxPose happening. Period.
I'm not here to brownnose anybody; bagginsbill knows it. I've called him names for his past errors, but I respect him for his recent choices: He might have a difficult character (who am I to reproach him for that), but he has proved he's not a jerk and knows when he has made an error (sorry, a "non-optimized decision"). I expect no less from the others.

I could say that I do take no for an answer. I could say say that I think you're way off base with your apparent opinion of me. I could say that when I pass gas, monkeys fly out of my ass. Of course, you don't have to believe any of it. But arguing with you over it will just start another "pissing contest" that I really don't want to start.

And if you've ever read any posts from me you would also know that I have myself blown up mightily at bagginsbill and others for being a dickhead at times. However, this may not be the thread for it.

I ask you this: Is it no wonder that people from other sites/other forums think that Poser users are nothing but a bunch of whining, crying bawl babies with mush for brains and personality disorders? It's no wonder to me. Not when we can't even be civil enough to get anything good for Poser accomplished anymore without being the above. And this back and forth shit is not helping. So, let's do like you say and be productive - without the all the bitchiness. We both - we all - have the same goal.

Laurie

Of course you blow up at me for being a dickhead. I am the biggest and best at anything, and that includes being a dickhead. grin

Quote - Of course you blow up at me for being a dickhead. I am the biggest and best at anything, and that includes being a dickhead. grin

I won't argue...lol.

Laurie

I updated the Wiki intro - we are in "prototype" stage. Not alpha. Not even development. Not even design. Prototype.

The usual sequence is:

dreamers at lunch
proof of concept (is this even possible?)
prototype (work out some very unclear broad issues)
requirements gathering (get detailed wishes assembled and prioritize)
design (how will requirements be addressed)
develop (build it)
alpha (coding largely done, test it internally, do negative testing, do performance testing, optimize if necessary)
beta (really good now - have some docs but not all - expect some problems, but minor only)
release (assemble all docs, final testing of installer, produce release notes especially clarifying issues of use discovered during beta)
support (deal with minor changes needed to address new problems found after release)
end of product life (phase out, plan migration strategy to new products)

Thanks, that explains a lot. And it's a lot of stuff I just didn't know. And thank you for updating the wiki to reflect it.

Laurie

Various companies all claim to have invented clever alliteration of the product life cycle using the letter 'd'. These companies are idiots. Do not take them seriously. If that's the most important thing they have to contribute to "process" they are useless and I eat them up.

discover, define, design, develop, deploy

Quote - I could say that I do take no for an answer. I could say say that I think you're way off base with your apparent opinion of me.

No problem, Laurie... :-D
My question of "taking no for an answer" was to avoid pointless discussions like "yes, but no". I have nothing against you, you're always a soothing and reality-rooted (no pun) person in those forums (I don't post much, but I read often).  :-D
You're a born moderator, IMHO...  ;-)

Quote - > Quote - I could say that I do take no for an answer. I could say say that I think you're way off base with your apparent opinion of me.

No problem, Laurie... :-D
My question of "taking no for an answer" was to avoid pointless discussions like "yes, but no". I have nothing against you, you're always a soothing and reality-rooted (no pun) person in those forums (I don't post much, but I read often).  :-D
You're a born moderator, IMHO...  ;-)

Nah, I get frustrated way too easily...lol. I probably would do okay if I were allowed to wield a cattle prod every now and then tho ;o).

Laurie

Quote - Of course you blow up at me for being a dickhead. I am the biggest and best at anything, and that includes being a dickhead. grin

If per chance you mean me, yes, I thought of you of being a dick (without head, actually), at the time we had our little Poser Pro 2010 discussion, quite some time ago...
I don't frequent those forums much (you might notice in my post count), so it took this project (LuxPose) for me to get a little closer to the real "bagginsbill". Well, during our exchanges my first impression of you being a dickhead has been slowly but surely changed to you being much more "head" than "dick".... I like people who deliver, and I just love people who can say "I'm an idiot, I was wrong, but I'll prove you I can fix it".
So yes, bagginsbill, you have my respect, for admitting (indirectly but that's okay) that AIR is crap and we don't really need the aggravation - just the result.

Quote - Nah, I get frustrated way too easily...lol. I probably would do okay if I were allowed to wield a cattle prod every now and then tho ;o).

A cattle prod for forum users? Such a waste of batteries...

Just something for some levity, maybe give everyone a giggle....then I really have to get back to gleaning all the useful stuff from that original monster thread for the wiki ;o).

No nudity, nothing bad, just pee-your-pants funny.

Ok, I'm back to reading :o).

Laurie

It is a work in progress and barely even functional. Please view the wiki.

Laurie

what the fuck happened to the wiki. thats a bloody incoherent mess.

Quote - It is a work in progress and barely even functional. Please view the wiki.

Laurie

Okey-dokey.  Thanks

JB