Lighting Tests

[thejobe]

Hey guys.

Been working on some new things with some people and trying to get 3D into the mix to give them a better understanding what i have at my disposal.

so i have a question for you all.

out of these 2 images which do you think blends better with the photo.

 

this First image was rendered using only blub lights with 16 buffers.

render time 4 mins

 

this second image was rendered using IBL only.

render time 6 mins

 

so what do you all think? and is there a way to merge them better?

following weeks ill be applying these to Video so it will be alot of frames.

[Simon Edmondson]

Not sure that I'm qualified to comment but, here goes.

 

 

I think the lighting on the first Image works best for the vehicles in the background under the awning, because there is a wider tonal range. Although the white car could do with a stronger highlight. The Foreground vehicle is perhaps more accurate in terms of realism but , if 'selling' that was the intention of the piece then the loss of detail would undermine the effect.

 

The second Image works better at 'selling' the foreground vehicle because it is more visible and the illumination around it works with rather than against it.

 

Perhaps a combination of the two would work best, with the background shadows of the first combined with the foreground of the second ( but a stronger highlight on the white car ) ?

 

Two pence worth

simon

[Wildsided]

gotta agree with Simon on this. It depends what effect you're aiming for. They both work well though. If I had to throw out a personal preference i'd say number 2, just because like Simon said it sells the go cart.

[robcat2075]

I like the second one much more. We might wonder where all the light on the go-kart comes from but not worry about it too much because it looks better.

 

Are all 3 vehicles CG?

 

On my monitor The van and VW are slightly too dark in the first and the Cart is nearly invisible but in the second the cart looks great while the VW and van might be a hair too bright.

[thejobe]

hmm interesting. . .

ill try to merge the two lighting setups and see what happens.

ill try a different scene too, something daytime.

 

Yes all 3 cars are CG. got them from the contributor cue.

[thejobe]

ok this image has a bunch of models in it.

this one is just using IBL lighting.

 

this one was done with a combo of Sun bulb and global lighting

[Simon Edmondson]

[My preference would be for the first (IBL ) example if only because the specular highlight on the sphere is too sharp and clearly defined in the second image. I don't know if its my monitor but there appears to be a slight pink tinge to top of the sphere in the first image and a green area to the lower part. That makes it fit the envioronment more that the neutral grey of the second image. I prefer the canon (?) in the first image too as the shadowsare clearer and the detail more apparent. Likewise with the bird bath (?) in the foreground. My only quibble would be that the blue in that looks a bit too intense and clear?

simon

[robcat2075]

The hazier lighting on the first seems more in tune with the apparently overcast sky we see in the background.

[thejobe]

hmmm.... ok

 

i think i understand a little better.

ill keep throwing up test images until i get almost perfect render (as close as i humanly can get)

 

hopefully the people im working with will be pleased.

[thejobe]

i think im getting pretty close

i render this one with V17

took about 14 mins

using IBL 2 lights AO and full reflections

[Simon Edmondson]

Impressive and certainly better than my render skills.

 

My only suggestions would be the strength of the reflections, in particular where the object meets the glass surface, They look a bit too 'thin'. And the strength of the light in the background coming through the door/window. Its a too strong and distracts a little from the foreground.. The highlights on the candle (?) work well, although a bit too close to the paper in the background in the top right corner. I would suggest that the specular highlights in the glass bowl need to be a bit stronger too as they are slightly grey.

 

regards

simon

[thejobe]

Impressive and certainly better than my render skills.

 

My only suggestions would be the strength of the reflections, in particular where the object meets the glass surface, They look a bit too 'thin'. And the strength of the light in the background coming through the door/window. Its a too strong and distracts a little from the foreground.. The highlights on the candle (?) work well, although a bit too close to the paper in the background in the top right corner. I would suggest that the specular highlights in the glass bowl need to be a bit stronger too as they are slightly grey.

 

regards

simon

 

i think your getting confused a bit of what is real and what is rendered (which is good! thats what im aiming for!)

 

there are only 2 objects that are rendered in the image.

the Robot and the crown behind the glass bowl.

everything else in the image is taken by the camera.

the reflections are from the ground plane which has front projection turned on and reflections set at 50%

 

now i could try to add reflections to the glass candle. but im not quite sure how to accomplish that yet.

[thejobe]

This has nothing to do with what i was doing with other tests but its stands on its own for another type of test.

i was working on a decal for this thread Here

and i came across a cool way of making a zombie looking hand.

so with a little tweaking and a lot of lighting adjustments, it came out like this.

 

 

The lighting is global light set at 25% ambiance/ 95% occlusion and 1 sun light at 100%, 16 rays, with distribute in passes ON.

 

with a bit of cool coloring this can look amazing. i think i need to play with it more!.

[Simon Edmondson]

i think your getting confused a bit of what is real and what is rendered (which is good! thats what im aiming for!)

 

I did mention my lack of qualifications (!). I was going to say that the light in the background looked like film transparency being blown out but not sure of my knowledge in that area. It would appear that my criticisms would apply to the original photo rather than your render in which case, my apologies. It does make a point about carefully picking the photo you want to work with. If your render skills are of the high order you display the photo you set them against needs to be of a comparable quality ?

 

Perhaps I best shut up now.

regards

simon

[robcat2075]

Cool hand!

 

Some moisturizer will fix that.

[mtpeak2]

Nice tests.

 

The hand looks pretty cool. I'd like to see how that looks on a full model.

[thejobe]

Nice tests.

 

The hand looks pretty cool. I'd like to see how that looks on a full model.

 

Sure ill give a full body a try. The hand only tool 5 mins to render.

[thejobe]

Its okay Simon.

I see what you are saying.

The photo was taken in my friends living room while he was showing me some renders on his animation program

I could have taken more time to even out the lighting but for a quick shot. It served its purpose.

[thejobe]

this one getting pretty close except for a few problems that im not sure why are happening.

the area above the building has weird shading issues from the front projection box i used to hide the tank. maybe i have to make a box in the shape of the building?

and color in the upper part of the photo looks like its fading a bit.

 

was trying to get more reflections in the car but doesnt seem to show up right.

 

and the shadow from the tank isnt showing on the ground?

 

anyone have any suggestions?

[thejobe]

this is a full body render of creppy hand test

 

[itsjustme]

this is a full body render of creppy hand test

 

 

That would make a good mummy, Jason!

[mtpeak2]

Creepy looking, cool!

 

As for the bright area above the building, did you set the front projection box to flat shaded?

[thejobe]

Creepy looking, cool!

 

As for the bright area above the building, did you set the front projection box to flat shaded?

No I didn't try that. What will that do? Let light fill the box so it doesn't cause weird shadows?

 

And ill post the project files of the creepy skin tests when i get off from work.

[mtpeak2]

If you set the box to flat shaded it will not be lit by any lights in the scene. To me, it looks as if the box is being lit up, which is causing the image being projected on it to be brighter.

[thejobe]

Ahhhha. Thanks for the clafication. Ill give that a try on the next render.

[thejobe]

here is the project file for the creepy mummy thing test.

creppy_girl.zip

[thejobe]

i did another skin test with a better render

this took 45 mins to render.

 

[thejobe]

i think im getting pretty close with these lighting settings.

but something still seems off.

maybe you guys can spot what im not seeing.

[Rodney]

The shadow color seems a bit grey in comparison to the other shadows which are bluish but other than that I'm really liking it.

 

What throws my eye off a little more than the lighting is a sense that the girl is a bit large for the scene she is in.

I'd guess she is appearing at least twice as large as she would be if she was really there.

IMO reducing her scale to 1/2 or 2/3 would help.

 

I just read back and have been enjoying all of your tests!

[robcat2075]

I agree the shadow color is off and it's not as dark as the shadows in the scene.

[thejobe]

Yeah I guess the color is off on the shadows. But how do i change shadow color without messing up the lighting on her?

[robcat2075]

In a regular render there is a setting for shadow color.

 

I'm not sure how that will affect a shadow being composited...

[thejobe]

In a regular render there is a setting for shadow color.

 

I'm not sure how that will affect a shadow being composited...

where is this setting located?

[MMZ_TimeLord]

thejobe,

 

My biggest irk on all the lighting image tests you've done so far would be that all of your CG models are in nearly if not perfect focus, where as some or most of the images have just a hair out of focus.

 

Maybe adjust your focal length on the CG just a hair, or maybe apply a slight blur to the high resolution images as a whole.

 

Great tests!!!

[robcat2075]

In a regular render there is a setting for shadow color.

 

I'm not sure how that will affect a shadow being composited...

where is this setting located?

 

In the Properties for Z-Buffered Kleig light only... Options>Cast Shadows ON>Tint

 

(Again, I'm not sure what result that has when you are rendering separate shadow passes)

 

 

For ray traced lights, you'll need to somehow tint the shadow pass in your compositing program

[ypoissant]

The bluish shadows come from the fact that sun shadows are illuminated by the blue sky. So it is not only the cast shadow that is bluish but also the non-lit side of the objects too. If you want to match the photo, you need to add some blusih lighting that simulates the sky.

[3DArtZ]

Hi Yves. Im happy to see you back here... well I dont know if you been around.. but Im just coming back lately and Im always happy to read and learn something from your posts!

Mike Fitz

www.3dartz.com

[mouseman]

Hi Yves. Im happy to see you back here...

Yeah, I agree! Everything Yves writes seems to be dead on, with a great insight and helpfulness! Thanks for stopping by, Yves!

[thejobe]

yea thats what i figured as much Yves. im just trying to trouble shoot the problem of the shadows having a blueish tint to them and keeping the colors correct on the model.

i would do this in post easily but rather figure it out in A:M becuase i will be applying these techniques to video and that is a lot harder to fix in post.

[robcat2075]

yea thats what i figured as much Yves. im just trying to trouble shoot the problem of the shadows having a blueish tint to them and keeping the colors correct on the model.

 

You could use a Light List to make the blue fill lights only shine on the ground.

 

Or...

 

You could make the ground bluer.

[ypoissant]

Thanks guys for your appreciation.

 

The way I solved the problem of keeping the objects color with blue sky lights in the past is this way:

 

I had a sky light rig with bluish lights and a sun light with a yellowish light. Then to help remove the bluish shade from the sky in parts of the scene that should be lighted by the sun, I added a twin negative bluish sun. Today. with AO, you can replace the sky light rig with the AO with apropriate bluish color for the ambient lighting. The yellowish shade from the sun is also important when trying to match a photo.

 

But there is more than the colors of the sun and sky to match a photo. There is also the dreaded black art of gamma correction (sorry for those who despise this topic). Your photo IS gamma corrected so should your render too. Without gamma correction, the colors look much more saturated than in the photos. And also getting the right ballance between the yellowish sun and the bluish sky is much harder to achieve without gamma correction because lights add up linearly in a render but not in a gamma corrected photo so you almost don't need the negative bluish sun trick. Also, withoiut gamma correction, your shadow terminators on the sides of objects come much more earlier than in the photo. A good example is your big ball in your second examples. The terminator would be much shorter with gamma correction than the one you have. But then, if you start experimenting with gamma correction, you will have to understand the ideas behing what is called the "linear workflow" to get your color rights even after you gamma correct your renders. If you do a search on Google images for "Linear Workflow", you will get numerous examples of what I mean with before/after comparisons and a lot of explanations.

[ypoissant]

I found this video presentation about gamma correction and linear workflow:

Matt's video presentation

 

And if you want to know how to implement a linear workflow in A:M, then there is my tutorial:

My gamma correction tutorial

[thejobe]

So basically in short its the process of light interpreting color and reproducing that on your monitor.

but that's a very water downed explaination.

[robcat2075]

the long explanation can be very long, indeed.

[thejobe]

ok im getting really close this time. but still feels a bit off. have to look at it a while and see whats still off.

 

 

also i did the gamma correction on your page and 2.2 is ultra way too high for my monitor.

from the test image the perfect gamma for this monitor is 0.89 i know it sounds low but the image looks good on it now.

i think its becuase its not a proper monitor.

[mouseman]

The best one yet! The size and shading of the character is really good! Her shadow on the ground is a bit light compared to the shadows of the trees, and maybe a bit fuzzy.

[robcat2075]

The best one yet! The size and shading of the character is really good! Her shadow on the ground is a bit light compared to the shadows of the trees, and maybe a bit fuzzy.

 

I second all of that.

[thejobe]

I think i few fixed it but I won't know until It finishes rendering. I'm going full scale this time. Only way i can see all the detail. Says it only has 4 days left to go on the render!

[Fuchur]

Cool looking lightening... very close to the original foto... really stunning.

 

AMD 6000+ 64bit (but only running 32 windows. face palm), 3GB Ram (thought it was 8GB, oh well), Nvidia 9600 GTX x2, 10x 5TB hardrives, Biostar motherboard link x3,

windows 7 Ultamite, A:M V14/15/16

 

Just to mention it: 3GB Ram (thought it was 8Gb, oh well)

-> if you are running a 32bit-windows, you can't access more then 2 (with a trick up to 3) GB of RAM. That may be the reason why you are not seeing all of the 8 GB of RAM you installed.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[thejobe]

Robcat was working on a little animation walk for me so i could try to blend video with 3D

i was so impressed with the walk i had to render it.

took about 3 hours to render this shot.

animation_test.mov

 

and Yes i know that's its because im using only a 32 bit version of windows. my dad got me the wrong version when i built this machine.

hoping for an upgrade in the near future