PDA

View Full Version : Your best interpolated GI setting for Interiors



djwaterman
11-11-2016, 05:47 AM
If you're doing pro level arch-viz work I'd like to get some of your standard GI settings as a starting point. Just that I might have to do a bunch of these over the next few weeks and I'd appreciate some help. I'd prefer to at least be starting with some basically decent settings before I start adjusting.

bazsa73
11-11-2016, 06:10 AM
For animated scenes DJ?

THIBAULT
11-11-2016, 06:25 AM
Hi DJ,

Here, we successfully follow the guide from Except!

http://www.except.nl/lightwave/RadiosityGuide96/index.htm

Always actuality !

Hope it's help you !

S0nny
11-11-2016, 06:43 AM
For animated scenes DJ?

This, static or animated? Also, how big?

Danner
11-11-2016, 07:19 AM
That guide is very good, but it's outdated, with importance sampling you can now drastically reduce your rays per evaluation for exterior shots. I recommend using a blurred HDRI image as a backdrop to light your scene. You could also try using a phisical sun and sky or just a gradient with the appropiate colors and a dome light with 1.5 degreees of aperture as a sun (to get slight soft edges on long shadows). As far as GI go with 3 bounces. 100-300 RPE, 50-100 secondary 3 minimum pixel spacing. This should give you good results with decent times. If you have small details lower the bounces to 1 and up the rays too 400 (a big hit on render time but you'll get realistic shadowing on small crevices.

S0nny
11-11-2016, 07:55 AM
It's difficult to give more specific suggestions without other infos.

Just a note about importance sampling, since we are speaking of interior, when ON it increases the pre-process calculation a lot (sometimes a good 30%), but it provides a cleaner result with the same number of RPE, in term of splotches. So it can be disabled to speedup everything if the difference is not much noticeable.

About MinPS and MaxPS, this settings basically controls how "tight" the GI solution is, and the size of the splotches, but I find useful to increase this values if the final render has a bigger resolution than the look dev render test. In some situations this settings prevent also light leaks from lumi poly or strange geometry, if MinPS are too high, so better be carefull and do full size limited region test of the critical area.

Niko3D
11-11-2016, 08:48 AM
Sure it depends from the situation...but these are my general setting of GI.135064

djwaterman
11-11-2016, 08:51 AM
Thanks people, it's for stills, office furniture in office settings for catalog.

Danner
11-11-2016, 09:46 AM
I could swear I read Exteriors.. Yeah the settings I talked about would be a bit low for interiors. Still the settings Niko uses are in my opinion unnecessarily high. 3 bounces for me is the sweet spot, after that the difference is too little to warrant the extra render time.
Interiors with big windows always look better so try to choose to use those if possible. To simulate light coming from the exterior I use a white dome light with an angle of 1.5 to simulate the sun and another bluish one with an angle of 60 to simulate the sky. I place the window glass in a separate layer and uncheck shadows and radiosity from the object render properties to let more light in and get better render times. I have tried luminous polygons, area lights, super-bright backdrops and portal lights to simulate the light from the window and I'm now happy with dome lights at 60. The render times are better than with area or portal lights, they show up in specular (unlike luminous polygons) and are quite controllable.

S0nny
11-11-2016, 10:08 AM
Ok, so fortunately you don't need animated GI.

Here my 2 cents:
considering that this is for a catalogue and it will be printed, all the work will be in the shaders, the lights and models, to get an (almost) photoreal result.

GI settings are basically for troubleshooting shadows and splotches in the renders: besides the bounces and the features (enable transparency, directional rays etc), they do not impact the overall quality of the render, so leave it at the very end of the process.

I would consider the follows though, because they have impacts on some settings:

- if there is a high intense light (DP sun) coming from the outside (because can causes many splotches in indirect illuminated areas like corners and occluded areas -> high RPE and SBR)
- if there are luminous polygons (same, they need a lot of RPE and SBR to avoid splotches)
- if there are CG lw lights, like areas etc (they introduce some noise, very easy to clean up, but they helps a lot to get a splotches-free render)
- if there are mixed HDR and lights (you can try to enable-disable importance sampling because you can speed up the render, or get a cleaner result with same RPE)
- if you have many transparent objects (because you need Enable Transparency and Directional rays ON to avoid unrealistic results, but brace yourself for incredibly high pre-process times)

Everything else is about sampling to get noise free lights and surfaces. Speaking of, do not underestimate Shading and Lights samplings, because in some situations I find that they clean up much better than Camera AA with AS.

erikals
11-11-2016, 02:48 PM
some hints here >
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?139419-Lightwave-render-The-Hague-Apartment

djwaterman
11-11-2016, 06:08 PM
Thanks again, I've bookmarked this thread and will refer back to it as I start the project.

samurai_x
11-11-2016, 06:21 PM
@S0nny you're still selling your kray license? You're using native lw for interiors?

djwaterman
11-11-2016, 10:47 PM
What about the effect of over exposure outside windows, any tip or tricks for that effect?

madno
11-11-2016, 11:30 PM
You can have a look here:
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?145185-Separating-GI-Rays-when-through-dielectric
But it requires a "worldsphere" object around the scene (does not work with textured environment afaik).

S0nny
11-12-2016, 02:29 AM
@S0nny you're still selling your kray license? You're using native lw for interiors?

Yes for both, I never got used to Kray. I was thinking to keep it for updating to K3, but as far as the developement goes I'll probably have already stopped using Lightwave before.

About the interiors, I can say that when it comes to photorealism in archviz it's very very difficult, if not impossibile in some cases, to keep up with Lightwave. For sure not at the level is generally expected today.
I'm not saying that Lw can't produce very good interiors, it does, but to get something that can compete with Corona or V-ray or anything else actually, in the photorealism realm, it needs like 10x the work, the trickery and the post to do.

When photorealism is not required, but still very good renders are, is where Lw is more than enough and can very competitive.

S0nny
11-12-2016, 02:52 AM
What about the effect of over exposure outside windows, any tip or tricks for that effect?

That's something I'd do in post, it's much more flexible and fast.
What happend outside the window it's for illumination and reflections, but you don't have to show it in the final render necessarily. You can pretty much render just the alpha for the outside, or a matte color for comp, it doesn't matter. Just save the render with the alpha for the windows, fit your backplate in ps or ae or any comp software, overexpose it, and do some glow/glare to give the atmosphere and you are done.

djwaterman
11-13-2016, 10:41 PM
Good people, another question. What are the standard passes I would want to render for decent post work adjustments. I hope not to go overboard but at least cover myself.

S0nny
11-14-2016, 05:15 AM
Good people, another question. What are the standard passes I would want to render for decent post work adjustments. I hope not to go overboard but at least cover myself.

It depends on the scene and on the workflow, sometimes I'm fine with an exr beauty and some specific passes like depth or IDs o MV in animation. But you can go with the usual diffuse, reflection, refraction, specular, shadows, AO (if needed, because it add up rendertime), depth and alpha (if not emdedded).
If you need very specific tweaking like muliple lights and you want more control in post for each one or groups of them, I think there's a way to save light passes also using DP filters.

In your specific case IMHO it's a good thing add the ID objects and ID surface buffers, you can save _a ton_ of time in post with this IDs availables.

Danner
11-14-2016, 06:32 AM
In our particular case we churn out about 6 stills and 4 animations per week, so the sheer volume doesn't let us go into much detail, for stills we just do a regular render, AO, and ID pass. The ID pass lets us add light blooms, blur reflections, add reflections, add grain, add texture, color correct etc, any specific materials. For stills I always edit the AO pass by hand because it will darken places where it looks wrong (inside and around lamp shades for example). A depth pass is nice to add atmosphere but it's rare that we need it, I don't quite like the results it gives for depth of field so if we need DoF we do it at render time.

djwaterman
11-22-2016, 08:32 AM
Since I have to make a bunch of room layout changes on this image that will essentially alter it completely I figured I may as well post it here.

135143

Thanks for the suggestions, I tried a lot of them in various ways.

S0nny
11-22-2016, 08:58 AM
Since I have to make a bunch of room layout changes on this image that will essentially alter it completely I figured I may as well post it here.

135143

Thanks for the suggestions, I tried a lot of them in various ways.

Good work Dj.
Is this MC non interpolated? Because it looks just a tiny bit grainy to my eyes. But since you have to do the post yet I'd say negligible.
The only thing I don't like is the floor, but really it's matter of how Lw manage the reflection blur, I don't want to be unpleasant.

erikals
11-22-2016, 08:58 PM
Nice!  :king:

djwaterman
11-22-2016, 10:54 PM
Good work Dj.
Is this MC non interpolated? Because it looks just a tiny bit grainy to my eyes. But since you have to do the post yet I'd say negligible.
The only thing I don't like is the floor, but really it's matter of how Lw manage the reflection blur, I don't want to be unpleasant.

Yeah it's non interpolated, still has a powdery look, more samples I guess. I already spoke to the client and told him to have a Vray artist lined up in case I'm unable to break the LW barrier.

pinkmouse
11-23-2016, 06:46 AM
It's certainly a good start. I'd look at the texture on the plastic cases though, they look a bit flat unlike real ABS/polyethylene. Perhaps a bit of SSS?

djwaterman
11-27-2016, 07:31 PM
Here's the version we sent off for feedback, and they have since made a few small requests which were easy to execute. They're happy with the look so I get to move on to other shots.

135189

jwiede
11-27-2016, 08:24 PM
Hmm, I find the noise on that case on the floor (lower R) rather distracting given the rest are so clean, and the overall color temp feels a bit too "blue" (grading?).

Still, if the client's okay with it, ship it! ;D

djwaterman
11-27-2016, 10:10 PM
You mean the bag on the lower left right? That's gone now, and the sofa also. Yeah I milked the warmth out of the grade to cool it down.

speismonqui
11-28-2016, 08:24 PM
I find it funny that the two Keyboard/mouse combos are for left handers? Not a criticism at all btw.

Love the renders, they are beautiful! Thanks for sharing.

djwaterman
11-30-2016, 02:29 PM
I should probably fix that before doing the "big"render.

spherical
11-30-2016, 11:57 PM
OK. This has been bothering me to some degree since I saw the final render. Went back to get myself a "second opinion", by way of re-seeing it at a later time, and it still strikes me the same. The floor planks look to be grooved at the edges. If this is true, that is really not going to play well with the chair caster wheels.

djwaterman
12-12-2016, 01:29 AM
Here's another render that was sent away for feedback which I've since received. The main thing I've changed is that the brick wall will now have proper displacement and the windows are more detailed, I was going to add more stuff, plants and things but they aren't asking for it so I won't.

135306

When these get approved I do doubled up renders and they can take all day, but everything is super clean so it's kind of worth it.

samurai_x
12-12-2016, 01:57 AM
Here's another render that was sent away for feedback which I've since received. The main thing I've changed is that the brick wall will now have proper displacement and the windows are more detailed, I was going to add more stuff, plants and things but they aren't asking for it so I won't.

135306

When these get approved I do doubled up renders and they can take all day, but everything is super clean so it's kind of worth it.

Nice job. Easy 300 bucks for this render. Make a couple more and its why archviz is easy money.
Unless its personal work i wouldnt add stuff thats not needed. Dont fall inlove with commercial work.

S0nny
12-12-2016, 02:38 AM
I like the floor much better than before.
What I find not so convincing is the overall lighting, which (to me) it looks a bit flat and also underexposed: this is the tipical Lightwave raw render who shows how important is to tone mapping for renders to get the extra step in realism.
This is a good starting point to work with: if you spend like 10 min in ps or in ae or anything who works with 16 or 32bpc files you'll be amazed how much you can do to improve this render.

djwaterman
12-12-2016, 05:32 AM
I like the floor much better than before.
What I find not so convincing is the overall lighting, which (to me) it looks a bit flat and also underexposed: this is the tipical Lightwave raw render who shows how important is to tone mapping for renders to get the extra step in realism.
This is a good starting point to work with: if you spend like 10 min in ps or in ae or anything who works with 16 or 32bpc files you'll be amazed how much you can do to improve this render.

Ha ha, that's actually a processed image, but no worries, I'll take the criticism and work with it. Actually, I never did put a curves on it and I could've pushed the vibrancy more. I'll think about it all when I work on the full render later this week as I have to get another room out before then.

S0nny
12-12-2016, 05:49 AM
Ouch, sorry. I'm glad you are not taking offense because my intention is really to give just some advices. In my experience the pp is absolutely critical, and can do all the differense in the world, expecially for non tone mapped renders like the ones that Lw produces. Lw doesn't tone map renders like Vray can internally do, for example.

Can you show the non processed one?

edit: also, are you working in 32bpc? You can do a lot of stuff with values over 0-1.

djwaterman
12-12-2016, 11:32 AM
Here's raw image.

135309

RudySchneider
12-12-2016, 12:27 PM
That's a nice scene, djwaterman, but I'd like to share an observation about something that REALLY stands out to me: That clock; it appears to be HUGE (or in Trump-speak, EEYUGE!)! Judging by the cabinet it's above, I'd guess it to be in excess of 24 inches in diameter. I'd guess that most "standard" --- not that I'm implying this is a standard scene --- office clocks are probably closer to half that diameter.

gerry_g
12-12-2016, 01:14 PM
maybe thats an American v Australian observation, here in the UK its quite common and trendy to have oversized wall clocks that look like they belong in some railroad ticket hall or industrial location

djwaterman
12-13-2016, 05:52 AM
Yeah that was the idea, although I also debated about the size.

S0nny
12-14-2016, 02:03 AM
Dj, I took the liberty of doing a test on your raw render. Here's a 5min dirty pp over the compressed jpg, Of course it's all about personal taste and the mood according to the artist and the client, this is just another interpretation. Maybe I lost some details, but again, not much thinking behind, just a fast and dirty tonemap and pp.

135325

Personally I think that the renders should be just the solid base for the editing, not the 100% final product. With some tricks here and there there's a very good margin for improvement, expecially with neutral raw files in 16 or 32bpc.

spherical
12-15-2016, 03:28 PM
Looks good. Whenever I do any arch using a wide FOV, I use a swing/tilt camera and choose and angle that does not quite match the camera pitch angle. When pointing up/down to any great degree, matching camera pitch produces way to much distortion trying to keep the verticals parallel. Just a few degrees less, and the view looks more natural as the eye sees it, still having some tapering, as opposed to the severe vanishing point on the Y axis that is generated with a standard camera.

djwaterman
12-16-2016, 02:13 AM
Dj, I took the liberty of doing a test on your raw render. Here's a 5min dirty pp over the compressed jpg, Of course it's all about personal taste and the mood according to the artist and the client, this is just another interpretation. Maybe I lost some details, but again, not much thinking behind, just a fast and dirty tonemap and pp.

135325

Personally I think that the renders should be just the solid base for the editing, not the 100% final product. With some tricks here and there there's a very good margin for improvement, expecially with neutral raw files in 16 or 32bpc.

Yeah that's pretty close to how that image ended up, mine was probably more colorful and I had more latitude to push exposures since I'm working with the 16 bit EXRs. I'll download yours and keep it on file.


BTW, what are your basic P'Shop tools for doing a fast and dirty tone map?

djwaterman
12-16-2016, 02:17 AM
Also, do you have that city skyline you put in? Is it an image I'm allowed to use?

Amerelium
12-16-2016, 06:08 AM
Off

djwaterman
12-16-2016, 06:51 AM
Off

Bicycle.

S0nny
12-16-2016, 08:42 AM
BTW, what are your basic P'Shop tools for doing a fast and dirty tone map?

In this case it's just camera raw, which comes in Ps.

If you have Lightroom is almost the same, but if I remember correctly it has some problems on 32bpc files (I need to check this out). You can also use ACR in AE during import, but you need tif and not exr, also it gives some problem in long animationes where there is a big variation in light in the scene, but it's awesome. It does a great job, I prefer it over Lumetri, but it's not an FX: one you import the files you can't change the parameters later, you have to re-import and do ACR again

Another very good tool, affordable, but a bit expensive for what it does, is ArionFx for Ps (recently they added the plugin for AE also), it's super easy to use and it has specific tools for tone mapping like Reinhard or despeckler for hot pixels. I guess there's a demo on the website.


Also, do you have that city skyline you put in? Is it an image I'm allowed to use?

I have some in my library, but this one is just one of the first I found in google, I did a deform to match the perspective and the light. I don't know if it's usable or not, I'd say yes since it's not even recognizable from the render, but unfortunately I used the drag n drop in Ps from firefox and I didn't save it.

djwaterman
12-16-2016, 10:51 AM
I have camera RAW, but it only opens up when I open a NEF file, how'd you get that JPG to open with camera raw?

S0nny
12-16-2016, 10:55 AM
Open any file in photoshop in the usual way, then from the menu Filter -> Camera Raw Filter, and the ACR window appears.

luzlight
12-16-2016, 06:26 PM
Something I've been trying lately to do a quick tone mapping in photoshop is the following: 1.- Save image in Tiff FP 2.- Open in photoshop (the image would look wrong and washed out). 3.- Choose to go from 32 bits to 8 bits/channel (image-->mode-->). 4.- You'll be presented with the HDR toning tool 5.- choose local adaptation and you'll get lots of sliders !. 6.- I generally make the tonning curve in the box at the bottom roughly follow the shape of the histogram as a first step. 7.- from there is playing with the sliders, "detail" slider is quite useful to control the strength of textures that would otherwise be lost (think of concrete or wood grain). 8 take a bit of patience to get the hang of it. Find it easier than passes as I usually don't have much time to do photoshop post. 9 you can save your set up for re-use 10.- save the edited image as a jpeg or tiff (8bits). Obviously you are very good at lightwave, I apologise if I am stating the obvious and you already knew all this !

luzlight
12-16-2016, 08:28 PM
I am going to put forward some strong criticism of your image. Its my own opinion as an architect. Don't take it to heart (I did like you house images you posted before a lot). I do commission this kind of images as part of my work. Making images for an architect can be a frustrating experience ( i know in this case is a furniture maker/seller? , but you've said you are getting into architectural CGI) be prepared... The mindset and purpose of architectural images are not the same as an image you may want to create with an artistic purpose. So: 1.- For architectural shots do straight verticals, use the shift camera. Always. You can break the rule for artistic effect, but in your image the slanting verticals aren't working in my opinion. 99% of architectural photography has straight verticals 2.- The layout of the furniture is odd for an office. 3.- the storage unit on the right is on a very very odd position, it's not the most precious piece of furniture either (its awful to be honest) so unless you client wants it on the foreground just get rid of it. It competes with the desk. 4.- Simplicity. you've got lots of distracting objects, radios, odd books old typewriters. Try to get the mood with the materials alone, brick, timber, metal, concrete, LIGHT, use decorative objects sparingly just to give scale, they are deviating the attention from the furniture. 4.- Try a single vanishing point perspective, shots tend to be more powerful in architectural interiors. 5.- you are trying to depict an office on an old converted ware house, not getting the details right makes it look odd: these buildings are usually only a few floors hight, the image on the outside proposed by someone else makes it feel you are on a skyscraper. Proportions of the window components look not right (that is for old industrial building windows). The same goes for the glazing screen at the background. Also: You can't cut a (probably load bearing) brick wall like that (in the background over the glazing), you'll need a beam. Hope it helps, although you are probably cross by now. Yo don't have to agree with me anyway.

djwaterman
12-16-2016, 09:49 PM
I am going to put forward some strong criticism of your image. Its my own opinion as an architect. Don't take it to heart (I did like you house images you posted before a lot). I do commission this kind of images as part of my work. Making images for an architect can be a frustrating experience ( i know in this case is a furniture maker/seller? , but you've said you are getting into architectural CGI) be prepared... The mindset and purpose of architectural images are not the same as an image you may want to create with an artistic purpose. So: 1.- For architectural shots do straight verticals, use the shift camera. Always. You can break the rule for artistic effect, but in your image the slanting verticals aren't working in my opinion. 99% of architectural photography has straight verticals 2.- The layout of the furniture is odd for an office. 3.- the storage unit on the right is on a very very odd position, it's not the most precious piece of furniture either (its awful to be honest) so unless you client wants it on the foreground just get rid of it. It competes with the desk. 4.- Simplicity. you've got lots of distracting objects, radios, odd books old typewriters. Try to get the mood with the materials alone, brick, timber, metal, concrete, LIGHT, use decorative objects sparingly just to give scale, they are deviating the attention from the furniture. 4.- Try a single vanishing point perspective, shots tend to be more powerful in architectural interiors. 5.- you are trying to depict an office on an old converted ware house, not getting the details right makes it look odd: these buildings are usually only a few floors hight, the image on the outside proposed by someone else makes it feel you are on a skyscraper. Proportions of the window components look not right (that is for old industrial building windows). The same goes for the glazing screen at the background. Also: You can't cut a (probably load bearing) brick wall like that (in the background over the glazing), you'll need a beam. Hope it helps, although you are probably cross by now. Yo don't have to agree with me anyway.

Thanks for the heads up on some of the technical problems with the architecture, and also you are probably on the right foot with distracting elements, but these aren't for architecture, they are actually product shots for office furniture catalog, so that's why I'm forced to position unlikely furniture in places you wouldn't actually put it. However as I've been doing these I'm learning and for the next one I placed all the featured furniture first and built my scene around it and that seems to be a better approach for this type of image. You have to imagine a catalog page with white etched products and somewhere on the page is an image of a room with some of the stuff in it. I actually really appreciate your comments because they are well observed and based on real knowledge. Although I'll never be using the shift camera for this stuff but will keep in mind verticals and if necessary alleviate them in Photoshop. Thanks.

spherical
12-16-2016, 10:27 PM
Although I'll never be using the shift camera for this stuff but will keep in mind verticals and if necessary alleviate them in Photoshop.

Why on Earth not?

As I posted earlier, I don't subscribe to the verticals being completely parallel all of the time in every shot. Sometimes, the FOV is just too wide and the resultant distortion is more annoying than the severe vanishing point was. Somewhere in between is the best. I agree that the slanting verticals, especially the far left desk leg, are really off-putting. If I had the scene, I could easily exhibit the difference. Perhaps I'll open one of mine up and to a comparison.

S0nny
12-17-2016, 02:23 AM
Something I've been trying lately to do a quick tone mapping in photoshop is the following: 1.- Save image in Tiff FP 2.- Open in photoshop (the image would look wrong and washed out). 3.- Choose to go from 32 bits to 8 bits/channel (image-->mode-->). 4.- You'll be presented with the HDR toning tool

The tif 32 looks washed out because for some reason Lw applies a sort of double gamma correction (not happens to exr). Before tone mapping you should apply a 0.454545 gamma to the image. So, open the file, image --> exposure and corretc the gamma. Then image --> HDR toning

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 02:39 AM
Why on Earth not?

As I posted earlier, I don't subscribe to the verticals being completely parallel all of the time in every shot. Sometimes, the FOV is just too wide and the resultant distortion is more annoying than the severe vanishing point was. Somewhere in between is the best. I agree that the slanting verticals, especially the far left desk leg, are really off-putting. If I had the scene, I could easily exhibit the difference. Perhaps I'll open one of mine up and to a comparison.

It's just a personal preference as I understand the LW shift camera simply eliminates three point perspective and a real shift lens camera doesn't do that entirely. There will be times I might employ it for a straight up architectural render that is about showing a viewer friendly yet not quite realistic view, but unless it's a requirement I'm not going to be using it, I mean it's not a lens I would choose in real life and it's just me, to be honest I'm not really that bothered by lens distortions yet I'm aware that clients can be. I value the feed back and just for the heck I may try a shift camera on it anyway. The reference they supplied was a wide angle and that's why I went with it, we'll see what they say on Monday.

luzlight
12-17-2016, 07:36 AM
You obviously have the right to decide how to make you images. I respect that.

I do think that in real life, architectural photographers do use shift cameras a lot and the vast majority of shots are with straight verticals or what appears to be straight verticals. Buildings just look better that way i think. Some random googled photographer example here: http://www.andymarshall.co/index with some good interior examples. Good luck with you client on monday.

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 11:18 AM
Yeah, great photos. I went and tried the shift and it looked pretty good, so I have it set up if they make the call.
Also Sonny, I have processed the last two images in Camera Raw and I like the results a lot, so that will become a part of my process from now on.

spherical
12-17-2016, 05:40 PM
It's just a personal preference as I understand the LW shift camera simply eliminates three point perspective and a real shift lens camera doesn't do that entirely.

It depends upon which swing/tilt/shift camera you use and how you choose the angles.


but unless it's a requirement I'm not going to be using it, I mean it's not a lens I would choose in real life and it's just me, to be honest I'm not really that bothered by lens distortions yet I'm aware that clients can be.

As a creator, it is good for one to be very critical of one's own preference and sensitive toward the client side of the equation where ever possible. Difficult path to walk, yes. Sometimes, it isn't appreciated/understood. Other times it isn't noticed. It is the latter that I strive for. If I achieve that, then there's nothing to negatively critique.


I value the feed back and just for the heck I may try a shift camera on it anyway. The reference they supplied was a wide angle and that's why I went with it, we'll see what they say on Monday.

Yes, that is what the client has readily at hand; probably a cell phone. You're the professional they hired. Send them a shot that somehow looks better, but they can't quite put their finger on it, and you're a star.

I see farther down that you tried it out. Did you choose "Use Cam Pitch? or deselect that and make your best feeling manual angle adjustment?

I use the native Shift Camera, CoolMuseum's Perspective Control Camera, UberCam (why is it named "Liberty3D" in the camera dropdown?) Radial Shift Camera and made a "real" view camera using the Advanced Camera as the film plane, a null set as grid which Advanced Camera shoots though that serves as the lens board; all parented to a null by which you aim the camera rig. This allows swinging the lens plane and the film plane to better control the distortion. The latter is what professional photographers use, not only when shooting exterior and interior architecturals, but product shots, portraiture and nature as well. I have two real view cameras; a 4x5 and an 8x10, with six lenses of varying element types, depending upon the shot. I pack the 4x5 out into the wilderness, along with a film changing bag and a scant few sheets, and get a better shot than I could with an SLR.

Here's the tutorial on how to set the view camera up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeVocESyAtg

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 07:33 PM
Damn, the Cool Museum plugin is only 32 bit, can I just set it up like the William Vaughan tutorial and get the same usage?

spherical
12-17-2016, 07:46 PM
Damn, the Cool Museum plugin is only 32 bit

The 32-bit-only is a bummer. If necessary, I just switch over to my 32-bit installs to use it.


can I just set it up like the William Vaughan tutorial and get the same usage?

You get Better Usage by doing it that way. Far more flexible and capable in getting the shot the way you ultimately want it, as it is a view camera that has all of that functionality. What I've been clamoring for all these years is a way to apply lenses from the Real Lens Camera to the Advanced Camera when used in the View Camera set up. Having irradiance falloff, lens parameters AND swing/tilt/shift would be seriously awesome.

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 08:37 PM
How does William's set up work with VPR do you know?

Well, before I posted this I set it up and surprise surprise, it does. This is kinda cool. Yeah, I agree, if I could have this rig and assign real lens camera to it that would be even better.

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 08:55 PM
Unfortunately I can''t see how to get DOF with the Advanced Camera.

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 09:06 PM
Nor with the Shift Camera. What gives?

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 09:14 PM
Unless I un-check the focus Item box in the Shift Camera dialogue and set it to none. So to get Depth of Field in the Shift Camera set Focus to None, Makes sense (not).

djwaterman
12-17-2016, 09:21 PM
Actually, I'm not sure that is even working now. I don't think the native Shift camera can do depth of field. LW's documentation on this stuff is way to shallow.

spherical
12-17-2016, 09:45 PM
Unfortunately I can''t see how to get DOF with the Advanced Camera.

Go back and view the tutorial again. Moving the Lens Plane closer to or farther from the camera achieves that.

djwaterman
12-18-2016, 12:21 AM
That just zooms the camera in and out, I can't achieve out of focus results. In the Native Shift camera, the documentation says that you can set a focus item to keep certain areas of the image in focus, but I couldn't get this to work, as the entire image stays sharp no matter where I move the item, and there's no f stop settings (it doesn't seem to take into account the DOF settings for camera), how are you doing it with the native shift camera, or with William's rig?

djwaterman
12-18-2016, 01:50 AM
Anyway, I downloaded and installed LW 32 bit and can use the Cool Museum Camera plugin, which does recognize LW's camera DOF settings.

djwaterman
12-18-2016, 09:03 AM
Here is what I've found when using the native shift camera in Layout, the open GL DOF preview is not an accurate representation of the final render, for instance, my preview is all up blurry, however a render shows the depth of field looks as it should (how it was set up with the perspective camera). My advice then is to use a perspective camera to set up depth of field, this can be targeted to a null using the DOF Target script by Matt http://www.pixsim.co.uk/, why haven't you included this into LW Matt?

Then when you make a new camera by cloning the perspective camera, and changing its type to "shift", and selecting the null object as the focus item in the Shift Camera properties, it should render out the finely tuned depth of field correctly, but you wont be seeing it correctly in the open GL preview.

I'm disappointed with Lightwave's lack of detailed information about this camera type, since Architectural photography over uses this type of camera you'd think there would be further information to show how to get the best out of it.

luzlight
12-18-2016, 03:53 PM
I've had difficult times before trying to get the DOF right with the shift camera and confused by the open GL preview. I've had to resort to trial-error. But your method seems far more efficient. Thanks for posting that. Obviously it would be best if it worked as it should out of the box.

spherical
12-18-2016, 04:26 PM
That just zooms the camera in and out,

I guess William misspoke, then? I'll check with one of my rigs later.

djwaterman
12-21-2016, 09:06 AM
Spherical, Luzlight and SOnny, just to update, you'll be interested to know that I ended up using a shift camera on all my rendering, basically I could see that it would help me smooth over client expectations, since this job has a lot of cooks. Also SOnny, I have incorporated Camera Raw into the workflow when it benefits a particular image, because sometimes it doesn't really. Luzlight, pretty much all of what you said about my composition are the things that got changed, plus I added the support beam because once pointed out I couldn't un-see it. Thanks for genuine and useful comments that helped me get better results.

MichaelT
12-21-2016, 12:24 PM
If possible, it would be great to see the difference between then final, and previous version. :) If possible that is...

luzlight
12-21-2016, 02:14 PM
Glad to be of help. At some point I thought I had gone one step to far with my critique...so it's a relief to know it was helpful.

spherical
12-21-2016, 07:25 PM
Spherical, Luzlight and SOnny, just to update, you'll be interested to know that I ended up using a shift camera on all my rendering, basically I could see that it would help me smooth over client expectations, since this job has a lot of cooks.

Having that perspective control is pretty essential sometimes.

Don't envy you on the "too many cooks" part. We just ate a $3,800 commission, due to a committee getting into it after the fact and nitpicking stuff that they think they see in a photograph and know nothing about. Custom cast glass 20" (51cm) diameter bowl (engraved, no less) and solid hardwood font stained to match their existing furniture to hold it. Heck, we already took one bowl back, just to offer good CS, and made a second one that they chose in a different style. Nope, don't want that one either. So, we make TWO cast glass bowls and a massive piece of furniture and, instead of working with us and accepting a refund, these @$$holes filed a dispute with the CC company. Now, we're playing hardball; just because they are acting like utter dirtbags. Wish there was a dirtbag filter that could be placed on the website, so that we could tell who is going to be a problem right off.


plus I added the support beam because once pointed out I couldn't un-see it.

Been there many times. :)

S0nny
12-23-2016, 05:53 AM
Thanks Dj, glad to help.

Btw maybe it's a bit late for the party, but why didn't you consider to add DOF in post? You can do it pretty easy saving z-depth 32bpc and adjust the focus where you want, without wasting time in testing rendering and sampling.

jwiede
12-23-2016, 06:10 AM
I've had difficult times before trying to get the DOF right with the shift camera and confused by the open GL preview. I've had to resort to trial-error. But your method seems far more efficient. Thanks for posting that. Obviously it would be best if it worked as it should out of the box.

The whole workflow for the shift and advanced cameras needs to be redone, they've been treated as second-class citizens for much too long. Those kinds of issues further the sense that Newtek/LW3DG just don't put much priority on visualization-type uses of LW. There are a bunch of other long-standing visualization workflow annoyances equally ignored (f.e. instancing workflow for distributing vegetation is needlessly difficult/manual in many cases).

As they've reworked the render engine, it'll be interesting to see if they've finally included support for proxy disk-loaded render geometry, another long-standing viz. ask. Likewise, it'll be interesting to see if they're still ignoring the shift and advanced cameras, or if they took to heart any of the long-standing requests there from viz. customers. I hope they've improved those workflows, but it won't surprise me if not.