PDA

View Full Version : New with LW 2018 LIGHTING Help PLEASE



Joey_C
05-27-2018, 04:56 AM
I just upgraded to LW 2018 I’m trying to figure out why my Rim light CAN be seen in open GL and the changes to the intensity or where you more it but when I render it does not show up.

No matter how high I crank up the intensity when I do an F9 it does not show up.

I deleted this light and tryied to add a new one, Nothing happens any different when I render it.

I cloned one of the lights that does work, it’s still doesn’t show up in the renter. I see everything in open GL working just fine but with I do an F9 my third light my rim light my spot light will not show up. “Intensity falloff is off”. Thank you for your help.

scallahan1
05-27-2018, 06:40 AM
Hi,

Can you upload the scene so a guru can peek at it? Probably something quite simple you're missing. Or maybe post a screenshot of the OGL screen and an F9 render?

Steve

MonroePoteet
05-27-2018, 09:30 AM
If your Rim light is a Spotlight, it may be a Falloff issue. Falloff for most Lights is enabled by default in LW2018, and the default falloff distance is 1 meter. In a really poor decision (IMO), Falloff Distance isn't accessible in the Light's Property panel, you *MUST* add a Light Falloff node to the Light's node graph:

141859 141858

Or turn off Falloff, of course.

mTp

rsfd
05-27-2018, 10:14 AM
^ Wouldn't call it a poor decision to transfer the Falloff Distance as option into the Node Editor.
The Lights now act physically correct by default, Falloff Distance option is not physically correct, so -as in real world- the main influences now are Light Intensity and the Light's position (distance to object).

Joey_C, have you checked position (with the Light View Viewport) and that your Spotlight isn't excluded from objects?
If you use a Spot Light as rim light, the light's position might be crucial for the result. Some lights (i.e. the Spot light) don't show good results in OpenGL, so VPR is probably better to preview the light's effect.
Other than that, screenshots or scene posted, as scallahan1 suggested, would help others to help you.

Axis3d
05-27-2018, 11:56 AM
Make sure that at the bottom of the Light Properties panel, that "Normalize" is checked. As your lights change size so does their intensity. With Normalize off, a smaller light of a given intensity will give out less light, a bigger light more. With Normalize on, the intensity stays the same.

jeric_synergy
05-27-2018, 12:17 PM
Put your light ridiculously close to the object, and to the side, to see if it's doing ANYthing.

My classic error for this is something is casting a shadow from that light.

Joey_C
05-27-2018, 03:23 PM
I tried everything you all said, nothing seemed to work. I just uploaded the a proxy object and the scene.

THANK YOU for all your help. I did learn a lot from you all.

For the camera, can you tell me WHERE to find the "Reconstruction Filers" I like using "Michell (Soft)" and I have no idea where to find it. THANK YOU again.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried everything you all said, nothing seemed to work. I just uploaded the a proxy object and the scene.

THANK YOU for all your help. I did learn a lot from you all.

For the camera, can you tell me WHERE to find the "Reconstruction Filers" I like using "Michell (Soft)" and I have no idea where to find it. THANK YOU again.

- - - Updated - - -

I tried everything you all said, nothing seemed to work. I just uploaded the a proxy object and the scene.

THANK YOU for all your help. I did learn a lot from you all.

For the camera, can you tell me WHERE to find the "Reconstruction Filers" I like using "Michell (Soft)" and I have no idea where to find it. THANK YOU again.

MonroePoteet
05-27-2018, 04:56 PM
RE: the sample scene / object, you may get better results if you match up the node input / output types correctly, so try the following:


In the node graph for the Default Surface:

Feed the Surface Luminosity channel from the Alpha channel of the Mixer (2) node, not the Color channel
For the Mixer(2) node, feed the Color input with a Make Color node, choosing R, G or B for the Scalar output of the Wrap (1) node. Without choosing a color channel, it probably ends up pure white or a gray

Change the Light Color on the Rim, Test Rim and Air Fill Lights to a harsh red to see the effect of them


When I make these changes I get this F9 render, which clearly shows the effect of the harsh red Rim lights:

141862

I think feeding the Color output of the Mixer (2) into the Luminosity channel rather than the alpha overwhelms the effect of the Rim lights.

mTp

MonroePoteet
05-27-2018, 05:06 PM
^ Wouldn't call it a poor decision to transfer the Falloff Distance as option into the Node Editor.
The Lights now act physically correct by default, Falloff Distance option is not physically correct, so -as in real world- the main influences now are Light Intensity and the Light's position (distance to object).

And acting "physically correct" is good, is it? In the sample scene uploaded, Joey_C seems to be simulating a microscopic view of a biological cell of some sort. He may not have any intention of it representing an actual micrograph or a photo / video through a microscope lens, which would be the "real world" lighting in this case. In a Computer Generated Imagery application, IMO it seems unfortunate to have to learn how lights work "as in the real world" to illuminate a simple simulation or visualization.

IMO, putting the Falloff Distance on the Light main panel allows the "real world behavior" guys to raise their eyebrows and shout "You Can't Adjust Falloff In Real World Lights!!!!", while allowing legacy customers and non-photorealistic creators to easily produce the lighting they want.

As always, just my opinion!

mTp

jwiede
05-27-2018, 05:21 PM
IMO, putting the Falloff Distance on the Light main panel allows the "real world behavior" guys to raise their eyebrows and shout "There's No Real World Falloff in Lights!!!!", while allowing legacy customers and non-photorealistic creators to easily produce the lighting they want.

As always, just my opinion!

mTp

Agreed 100%!

The whole "it's more realistic" argument is ridiculous, nothing about any of it is particularly "realistic" and pretending otherwise is just plain silly. A frequently-used control was moved from an easily-accessible location to a much less accessible/discoverable/convenient location and mechanism, to the detriment of UI efficiency.

Joey_C
05-27-2018, 05:46 PM
Thank you.

So you saying it is my surface on the object causing the trouble?

Joey_C
05-27-2018, 06:00 PM
Thank you MonroePoteet for all your time for all your help. If you can could you just send me the object back with the changes? I have so many nodes in this surface it is not clear when ones you want me to change. TKS. I am one of those visual learners. A picture in worth 1000 words.

rsfd
05-28-2018, 03:45 AM
@Joey_C
Had a look at your scene and can only state that all lights are showing up fine in OpenGL, in VPR and F9 here.
Had turned off any lights and then tested each one after another.
(The „TestRim” Light of course has a much too high intensity but I get that this originates in your testing routine).
„TestRim” and „Rim” Lights are so close in regard to the angle to the object that they mostly converge to the same light effect. So I just assume that it is meant as „one or the other”.

In general, if you have a luminous object where luminosity is based on the incidence angle, you need to think about what effect you want to come up with at the end.
The stronger the object’s luminosity the harder it will be to get any visible rim light effect on that object.

> Reconstruction Filter
You find these in „Render Properties > Buffers”.
Make sure to enter the same filter for each buffer so that you will not get in trouble in post-production later on.


And acting "physically correct" is good, is it?…
It was just meant as a possible explanation why NewTek decided to do that change.
As the new rendering system is of type „PBR”, this seems logical to me.
But that’s just my opinion. I accept that your opinion is more important to you.

Joey_C
05-28-2018, 04:16 AM
THANK YOU rsfd for having a look at my scene. Got it! Thanks so much!

ps what do you mean "Make sure to enter the same filter for each buffer so that you will not get in trouble in post-production later on." "Each Buffer". You mean each scene that I render? Not sure I understand what the word "Buffers" mean in LW. TKS agian!

MonroePoteet
05-28-2018, 07:41 AM
Thank you MonroePoteet for all your time for all your help. If you can could you just send me the object back with the changes? I have so many nodes in this surface it is not clear when ones you want me to change. TKS. I am one of those visual learners. A picture in worth 1000 words.

Hi Joey,

Unfortunately, I didn't save the changes I made for the render I posted previously. As well, I don't really know what it's "supposed" to look like, but here are screen shots of the process I used this morning and the render results. See the names of each screen capture for a little explanation of each step.

141868 141867

141866 141865 141864

141869 With Distant Light 0 lux, 2 Rim and Fill changed to Red

I think in yesterday's post I'd also turned off the backdrop or reduced the Global Illumination.

mTp

MonroePoteet
05-28-2018, 07:57 AM
It was just meant as a possible explanation why NewTek decided to do that change.
As the new rendering system is of type „PBR”, this seems logical to me.
But that’s just my opinion. I accept that your opinion is more important to you.

Thanks. I've never really aspired to photorealism in my hobbyist CGI efforts, so a "physics based rendering" system doesn't really have much allure for me and being forced into it grates a bit. I understand the industry trend is more toward "faking reality" than "telling a story" and LW is jumping on board, but that may mean that artists who want to tell their story with minimalist or non-photorealistic or surreal out-of-this-world imagery may be in for a struggle as the tools evolve toward "virtual reality". It seems unfortunate to me to have to learn how real world lights and surfaces work to create and illuminate a cartoon character or a line drawing or a non-photorealistic simulation or visualization.

Again, just my opinion.

mTp

Joey_C
05-28-2018, 08:05 AM
WOW MonroePotect THANK YOU for your HELP and TIME! You saved the day!!!!! MonroePotect I am not sure, can I send you a direct message? THANK YOU so much!!! A picture is worth 1000 words.

Tobian
05-28-2018, 08:06 AM
Step 1) go into your light nodes, delete the falloff node you may find in there after a scene import.
Step 2) Make sure all lights are set to inverse squared falloff
Step 3) launch VPR
Step 4) increase the intensity of the lights till they look nice to you

The legacy falloff node creates nasty noisy issues. The way you light a scene is to simply increase the intensity till it looks right.

I have no idea what your surfacing was supposed to look like, but stripping it out, setting it to the right CS, increasing the area and intensity of the lights and fiddling about it looks ok to me. rebuild your surfaces to look good in pbsdf and sRGB141873141872 Looks ok in OpenGL too.

jeric_synergy
05-28-2018, 08:12 AM
Thanks. I've never really aspired to photorealism in my hobbyist CGI efforts, so a "physics based rendering" system doesn't really have much allure for me and being forced into it grates a bit. I understand the industry trend is more toward "faking reality" than "telling a story" and LW is jumping on board, but that may mean that artists who want to tell their story with minimalist or non-photorealistic or surreal out-of-this-world imagery may be in for a struggle as the tools evolve toward "virtual reality". It seems unfortunate to me to have to learn how real world lights and surfaces work to create and illuminate a cartoon character or a line drawing or a non-photorealistic simulation or visualization.

Again, just my opinion.

mTp

I'm quoting in total because this is so well said. I look on from the sidelines with bafflement about all the PBR/Octane/Kray excitement. It's "nice" and all, but, y'know....whatever.....

And that people FIRST ask, whenever they see a nice render, "Octane????", is just effin' annoying.

MonroePoteet
05-28-2018, 08:22 AM
WOW MonroePotect THANK YOU for your HELP and TIME! You saved the day!!!!! MonroePotect I am not sure, can I send you a direct message? THANK YOU so much!!! A picture is worth 1000 words.

Glad to help, although I'm no expert. RE: private messages, I'd really rather keep the discussion(s) in the forum so everyone can learn from the conversation.

mTp

rsfd
05-28-2018, 09:26 AM
…ps what do you mean "Make sure to enter the same filter for each buffer so that you will not get in trouble in post-production later on." "Each Buffer". You mean each scene that I render? Not sure I understand what the word "Buffers" mean in LW. TKS agian!
Hello Joey_C,
while you can render your image into 1 single final result (the „Final_Render”-Buffer in LW-speach), you can also render the various „parts” (or „Buffers”), that build up that final image, separately.
This offers more possibilities if you want to post-process your rendered images within a Compositing- or an Image Editing software later on.

And if you render your image and split it up into all necessary „buffers”, you might run into problems when different Reconstruction Filters were set to different buffers, as it might be impossible to reconstruct the final image at the end (due to Anti-Aliasing issues).

For more information about Buffers, you can refer to the LW online documentation here:
https://docs.lightwave3d.com/display/LW2018/Standard+Buffers



Thanks. I've never really aspired to photorealism in my hobbyist CGI efforts, so a "physics based rendering" system doesn't really have much allure for me and being forced into it grates a bit. I understand the industry trend is more toward "faking reality" than "telling a story" and LW is jumping on board, but that may mean that artists who want to tell their story with minimalist or non-photorealistic or surreal out-of-this-world imagery may be in for a struggle as the tools evolve toward "virtual reality".
Hello MonroePoteet,
I wouldn't necessarily think that it's getting harder to achieve non-photorealistic content, as the needed tools are still available. Just some workflows need to be renewed. (Even the "Photorealistic guys" need to adopt the new Shader and Render Engine).

It seems unfortunate to me to have to learn how real world lights and surfaces work to create and illuminate a cartoon character or a line drawing or a non-photorealistic simulation or visualization.
But in the end, you don't have to. One can just continue to work the way one was used to (i.e. turning off a Light's Falloff or similar), as long as one achieves the wanted result.
On the other hand: it might give you even more possibilities to work out non-photorealistic images, when you have a certain knowledge about how things act "in real world".

Matt
05-30-2018, 04:39 PM
Agreed 100%!

The whole "it's more realistic" argument is ridiculous, nothing about any of it is particularly "realistic" and pretending otherwise is just plain silly.

Except PBR algorithms require it to work correctly. We're not alone in this.

madno
05-30-2018, 11:02 PM
Buffers can be found in the render properties panel (strg + p).
There you can select which buffers LW should create. In my example Final Render and Alpha are active.
At the bottom of the panel you can select which reconstruction filter to use.

141898