Toss Denis a few coins for continuing development of color management and denoising tools

raymondtrace

raymondtrace

Founding member
Newly released/updated in the past day: Color Manager, now for LW2015 as well (LW2015-2020).

This can support a lot of color workflows, including ACES.

The Color Manager module offers a main node working in all node editors with color input, primarily intended to transform and convert color images. This can be done globally through Color Manager Scene Master or locally with Color Manager node within any node editor. Both approaches could be mixed.
Click to expand...

Don't forget OpenImageDenoise, also available for LW2015-2020. OIDN can offer better results than LW's GPU denoiser...and you don't need GPU for that.


Be sure to click the donations link at the bottom of his web pages.
 
personally, don't use color managers in my 3D. correct color shading on the outset w/ UV's and procedurals is the first step. post filters in after effects is the final step, and allows me perfect control over the look i want. i never publish what comes out from the render queue without post production fx.
 
Color manager is a basic requirement for correct shading.
Either you use LW's own color manager or implementations from third-party providers such as Denis Color Manager, which has the possibility to use ACES workflow.

To avoid misunderstandings: it's not about using tone mapping inside the render software, that should be done with professional work in compositing software or image processing software. Rather, it is about converting all color sources (palettes, images, environments, etc.) into the same color space with the same, linear gamma. And their correct display with different monitors.

Especially for VFX work:
On the one hand, the ACES workflow improves the matching of different image sources (live action footage, renders and other image sources). You work continuously in the same color space and with the same screen display. On the other hand, there is another advantage:

Lightwave renders in a linear sRGB color space by default (actually, the LW color manager converts all color sources to linear sRGB, the actual color space doesn't "matter" to the renderer, that's just math). ACEScg color space is larger than sRBG color space. Therefore there are differences in shading.


A few more words about tone mapping: if you feel like it, you can of course also do it inside the rendering software. There have been various options for this in Lightwave for many years, but these are hardly known. Unlike, for example, in Octane Renderer, where most hardly ever rendered without tone mapping. This is why Octane renders often appear "crisp" and more photorealistic than unprocessed Lightwave renders.
As mentioned, professional users use special software for tone mapping, hobby users are of course often very impressed by the processed results of such renderers. Of course, each render in Lightwave is also converted at least for display on the monitor, but without paying particular attention to the tone mapping used.

ciao
Thomas
 
Thomas Leitner said:
Color manager is a basic requirement for correct shading.
Either you use LW's own color manager or implementations from third-party providers such as Denis Color Manager, which has the possibility to use ACES workflow.

To avoid misunderstandings: it's not about using tone mapping inside the render software, that should be done with professional work in compositing software or image processing software. Rather, it is about converting all color sources (palettes, images, environments, etc.) into the same color space with the same, linear gamma. And their correct display with different monitors.

Especially for VFX work:
On the one hand, the ACES workflow improves the matching of different image sources (live action footage, renders and other image sources). You work continuously in the same color space and with the same screen display. On the other hand, there is another advantage:

Lightwave renders in a linear sRGB color space by default (actually, the LW color manager converts all color sources to linear sRGB, the actual color space doesn't "matter" to the renderer, that's just math). ACEScg color space is larger than sRBG color space. Therefore there are differences in shading.


A few more words about tone mapping: if you feel like it, you can of course also do it inside the rendering software. There have been various options for this in Lightwave for many years, but these are hardly known. Unlike, for example, in Octane Renderer, where most hardly ever rendered without tone mapping. This is why Octane renders often appear "crisp" and more photorealistic than unprocessed Lightwave renders.
As mentioned, professional users use special software for tone mapping, hobby users are of course often very impressed by the processed results of such renderers. Of course, each render in Lightwave is also converted at least for display on the monitor, but without paying particular attention to the tone mapping used.

ciao
Thomas
Click to expand...
Just had a look at your website Thomas, some really cool stuff on there. Did you use Lightwave in the VFX work?
 
tony6 said:
Just had a look at your website Thomas, some really cool stuff on there. Did you use Lightwave in the VFX work?
Click to expand...
Many Thanks.
Most 3D work is done in Lightwave. But we also use other 3D software if it makes sense. Ultimately, it's a question of how I can achieve the desired quality at the cheapest possible price (which often means fast, good quality results). And that's where Lightwave usually has the edge.

ciao
Thomas
 
Last edited:

Unlike, for example, in Octane Renderer, where most hardly ever rendered without tone mapping. This is why Octane renders often appear "crisp" and more photorealistic than unprocessed Lightwave renders.
Click to expand...
yep.
take note.

 
Thomas Leitner said:
Color manager is a basic requirement for correct shading.
Either you use LW's own color manager or implementations from third-party providers such as Denis Color Manager, which has the possibility to use ACES workflow.

To avoid misunderstandings: it's not about using tone mapping inside the render software, that should be done with professional work in compositing software or image processing software. Rather, it is about converting all color sources (palettes, images, environments, etc.) into the same color space with the same, linear gamma. And their correct display with different monitors.

Especially for VFX work:
On the one hand, the ACES workflow improves the matching of different image sources (live action footage, renders and other image sources). You work continuously in the same color space and with the same screen display. On the other hand, there is another advantage:

Lightwave renders in a linear sRGB color space by default (actually, the LW color manager converts all color sources to linear sRGB, the actual color space doesn't "matter" to the renderer, that's just math). ACEScg color space is larger than sRBG color space. Therefore there are differences in shading.


A few more words about tone mapping: if you feel like it, you can of course also do it inside the rendering software. There have been various options for this in Lightwave for many years, but these are hardly known. Unlike, for example, in Octane Renderer, where most hardly ever rendered without tone mapping. This is why Octane renders often appear "crisp" and more photorealistic than unprocessed Lightwave renders.
As mentioned, professional users use special software for tone mapping, hobby users are of course often very impressed by the processed results of such renderers. Of course, each render in Lightwave is also converted at least for display on the monitor, but without paying particular attention to the tone mapping used.

ciao
Thomas
Click to expand...
Postprocessing images with volumetrics or clouds etc, where subtle nuances is needed to be seen At once in order to tweak it right..and to even know the effect is indeed at work, doing it in post process would be very difficult to get it right, you wouldn´t even Know that you have your volumetric settings right, tiny tiny settings in the direct tonemapping could make or break it.

I´m not saying that Tonemapping in post is wrong or so, it´s just when you are dealing with such low level difference between light and backgrounds, scattering etc...it will be extremely hard to even tweak volumetrics, to recognize when the effect kicks in etc.
 
inakito said:
Does the denoiser works for 2020? Can it be used to render image sequences too?
Click to expand...
Which denoiser? they should all work for 2020 though.
I think the GPU denoiser is only working for stills, not entirely sure, as for Dpont´s tools, don´t know.
 
inakito said:
Does the denoiser works for 2020? Can it be used to render image sequences too?
Click to expand...
Denis' may not have upgraded to LW2020 so his plugins specify compatibility up to the 2019 release that he can test. However, as his plugins are free and instantly available by download, I cannot imaging anything stopping us from testing them in LW2020 and realizing that they work fine (as I have done).

EDIT: I just noticed in the "readme" file for the OIDN plugin that there is a mention of LW2020. Denis just neglected to fully update the notes on the OIDN web page after the 2020 release.

In regard to image sequences...OIDN is found on the filter node page. These all work on individual renders. Ideally, you should not be pushing a denoiser to such a degree that there could be differences between sequential frames. Denoisers should be applied to perfect an already well configured render.
 
Last edited:
raymondtrace said:
Ideally, you should not be pushing a denoiser to such a degree that there could be differences between sequential frames. Denoisers should be applied to perfect an already well configured render.
Click to expand...
so true..I forgot to recall that as something to be aware of..you do not wantt flicker..artifacts that blur denoise would introduce per frame denoise basis.
post process may work better
 
prometheus said:
Postprocessing images with volumetrics or clouds etc, where subtle nuances is needed to be seen At once in order to tweak it right..and to even know the effect is indeed at work, doing it in post process would be very difficult to get it right, you wouldn´t even Know that you have your volumetric settings right, tiny tiny settings in the direct tonemapping could make or break it.

I´m not saying that Tonemapping in post is wrong or so, it´s just when you are dealing with such low level difference between light and backgrounds, scattering etc...it will be extremely hard to even tweak volumetrics, to recognize when the effect kicks in etc.
Click to expand...

As already mentioned in my previous post: That's why there are converters for displays in color management.
This is tone mapping! ACES display outputs have their own look.
But nobody converts the render output within the 3d software in a professional VFX workflow.
In compositing, you want/need the full color gamut of the render, not already reduced ones.

By the way: our colorists can work out an incredible number of subtleties (much more than I can:)).

ciao
Thomas
 
I save out multilayer .exr's along with .png's of depth, surface, object and a bunch of other buffers - but I rarely use the .exr's, just the png's.
 
Anybody got around to test an ACES workflow with the DP Color Manager ?
- screen shots of settings will be very very appreciated, - these settings, see picture:
 

Attachments

  • DP-CM.jpg
    DP-CM.jpg
    298.3 KB · Views: 116
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top