PDA

View Full Version : Need help Texturing/Lighting etc.



adaminator1
06-06-2010, 09:20 PM
Okay, so I suck at Texturing and Lighting. I'd love to be able to light scenes realistically, shade them perfectly, and get all my textures looking right, but unfortunately, I don't know exactly how. Anyone got any good tuts to help me out? I want to be able to do fantastic landscapes and architecture, but I can't. It'd be awesome to get some good tuts for those things as well.

jameswillmott
06-06-2010, 09:54 PM
Use good references. You can't go wrong if you have an example of what you want to see in front of you.

Practice helps a lot too, LW might render beautifully but it still needs a practiced eye guiding it.

And if you're using radiosity, make sure you're using a linear workflow so your lighting intensity takes care of itself instead of looking too dark. Matt did a nice tutorial on linear colour, it's on the forum somewhere...

Drocket
06-06-2010, 11:50 PM
I would also recommend this book "Digital Lighting and Rendering", while not specifically for Lightwave it is still a great read.

http://www.amazon.com/DIGITAL-LIGHTING-RENDERING-Jeremy-Birn/dp/0321316312/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275889657&sr=8-2

Mr Rid
06-07-2010, 01:30 AM
For phtorealism, always reference reality as mentioned.

Photoreal lighting is so easy in LW, am amazed how many people do it wrong. Only area and spherical lights mimic realistic shadow detail (have yet to need a photometric light). Enable Radiosity, add a couple bounces, and you are 75% there. Ray Recursion of 3 works for 99% of renders with reflections. 8 covers most refractions.

Most people use too many lights. I cant remember the last time I used more than 3 lights in any scene. Start out by positioning lights only in place of actual light sources- the sun, or a lamp. Interior lights need falloffs applied that you just have to experiment with.

Then texuring well is the other half of the equation. All surfaces benefit from incidence angle gradients-
http://www.box.net/shared/static/6hauabokvz.pdf

aaronbeyer
06-08-2010, 07:08 PM
HDRi 3D Magazine issue 32 has good articles on both of these questions. Its the current issue so it should be at the bookstore. It has Shrek on the cover and itll run you about 10 bucks. Good luck with it.

accom
06-09-2010, 01:13 AM
An excellent way of learning proper lightning is photography. You don't need any special camera, actually - any camera is good. Take a few different objects (a teddybear, an apple, some silverware, a glass etc / different glossiness, reflection etc), get two light sources (again - anything is good!) and start shooting. I've been around many professional photographers, assisting, watching... and have never learned much... until I had to shoot some steel piece, milled with CNC machine... it was all shiny, lots of details, and all I had was two desktop 60W lights, a camera, tripod and some white paper.... took me about 1 hour to get not-totaly-crap pics, and then it sucked me in... I was shooting that piece for next 4 hrs, just to play arround... it was somekind of delirium and the result was excellent. My free-time-tutor (photographer and a friend) wanted me to reconstruct the lightning scene when he saw the pictures.

Since then my lightning techniques have never been the same. :) Three lights is just fine for tabletop-like renders.

sompson
06-09-2010, 12:41 PM
Nicholas Boughen wrote a great book - LightWave v9 Lighting

It's a must-read for every lightwave artist, at least in my opinion

adaminator1
06-09-2010, 11:35 PM
Cool I'll check some of those books out :)

prometheus
06-10-2010, 04:50 AM
I want to be able to do fantastic landscapes and architecture, but I can't. It'd be awesome to get some good tuts for those things as well.

for fantastic landscaping and if you can afford it, you might consider using vue as well..download the vue pl version and try it out..you can easy get up and running fast for creating landscapes with that.

The downside with vue compared to lightwave might be rendertimes , depending on settings and atmospheric mode. (and prizing)

You can surely create stunning landscapes with lightwave too..but it doesn´t come that out of the box easy as in vue, and overall atmospherics and volumetrics are way more easy and realistic in vue.

On the other hand, architecture renderings are more suitable work for lightwave I would say, but nothing wrong with a combo of lightwave and vue..if you can get a lightwave-vue pipeline to work properly.

Michael

3dWannabe
07-06-2010, 07:33 PM
For phtorealism, always reference reality as mentioned.

Photoreal lighting is so easy in LW, am amazed how many people do it wrong. Only area and spherical lights mimic realistic shadow detail (have yet to need a photometric light). Enable Radiosity, add a couple bounces, and you are 75% there. Ray Recursion of 3 works for 99% of renders with reflections. 8 covers most refractions.

Most people use too many lights. I cant remember the last time I used more than 3 lights in any scene. Start out by positioning lights only in place of actual light sources- the sun, or a lamp. Interior lights need falloffs applied that you just have to experiment with.

Then texuring well is the other half of the equation. All surfaces benefit from incidence angle gradients-
http://www.box.net/shared/static/6hauabokvz.pdf
I'm reviewing videos on camera choices found here: http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/tutorials.php

and reading thru threads on camera choice.

Which camera(s) do you generally use?

Mr Rid
07-06-2010, 08:20 PM
I'm reviewing videos on camera choices found here: http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/tutorials.php

and reading thru threads on camera choice.

Which camera(s) do you generally use?

Classic camera, because I find that 98% of the time it renders faster. People keep telling me the Perspective camera optimizes ray tracing and multi-threading but I only ever see it take longer, or about the same time to render with equally adequate AA and moblur settings. It seems that most just automatically use the Perspective camera. Several times I have wondered why an animator's scene was taking so long to render on the stack, I looked into their scene that was using a Perspective camera and I usually found Classic settings that looked as good and rendered faster. I render 'complex' scenes with GI, reflection, refraction, SSS, voxels and all that, but I still have yet to see the Perspective camera render faster as it supposedly should. I assume the Perspective camera may render faster in scenes using dozens of recursions and bounces (and may be a still render that does not require many passes of moblur), but that are overkill for the work I do.

So far I have only needed the Perspective camera once, for a series of three shots that required a particular extreme of depth of field and high speed moblur, that could not be faked in post.... and those scenes took forever to render.

3dWannabe
07-06-2010, 08:33 PM
Classic camera, because I find that 98% of the time it renders faster.
Wow!

That's very useful to know, esp. as I was leaning towards perspective as those videos said it was "identical to classic, but 100% ray-traced".

Thanks!

Mr Rid
07-06-2010, 08:50 PM
Give it a sec. Someone usually debates this. :)

3dWannabe
07-06-2010, 09:02 PM
Oh dear, if they reach a consensus, I'm doomed to follow it - as my motto is always:

Rebel against non-conformity!

Shnoze Shmon
07-08-2010, 07:31 AM
Give it a sec. Someone usually debates this. :)

It's wrong! It's all wrong! Everything is wrong!...

...


... umm nothing really substantive to add...

does a good debate actually need substance?

...or is that just political campaign debates?:D