[lsega77]

Edit moved to first post

HUGH: Thanks for the explanation. Guess no cheating with maxwell (but I think that's good thing).

[Hugh]

HUGH: Thanks for the explanation.

NP

Guess no cheating with maxwell (but I think that's good thing).

Not untill RC6 I reckon. Oops! I mean V1!

[lsega77]

M~R Test Render 4 updated into first post of this thread

[Kabe]

Hughs answers sounds good, and it might contain some truth, but in such a
scene with so much scattering it could never lead to such darkening.

The darkening you have in your image is natural vignetting, as jpd spotted correctly.
I have summed it up here: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2923

You can easily check that by rotating your camera.

Hope it helps

Kabe

[lsega77]

Hughs answers sounds good, and it might contain some truth, but in such a
scene with so much scattering it could never lead to such darkening.

The darkening you have in your image is natural vignetting, as jpd spotted correctly.
I have summed it up here: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2923

You can easily check that by rotating your camera.

Hope it helps

Kabe

thanks Kabe, I'll check into your post an adjust my camera to correct for vignetting.

So If I'm understand your explanation in your post on vignetting then my camera angle reletive to the angle of my emitters is causing this vignetting effect?

Would it be safe to say that since my camera's direction of view is parrallel to the emitters orientation vignetting occurs. If adjust me camera angle to be other than parrallel to the emitters this would compensate for the effect?

[acquiesse]

Hi,

This is a really nice story of the progression, I like the format....

It seems to me the problem is that people are doing what the think are "reasonable" settings, to get the results that "look right"...

I know from my experience using a manual SLR that it can be suprising how much light you need, the experience of our eyes is not the same as the camera.

A photo looking directly out of a window will have a huge amount of contrast compared to one perpendicular to a window, so you will get 2 very different photos from the same lighting conditions.

I was wondering if the next step would be to take a photo, noting all the settings of ISO, shutter etc. and compare this to your render. I don't have access to a room using the sorts of luminaires in your photo, I presume from your work you may do?

This would give a better reference and would probably help renders in the future...

I expect people have done similar things in the past, but I haven't seen any...

[lsega77]

Hi,

This is a really nice story of the progression, I like the format....

It seems to me the problem is that people are doing what the think are "reasonable" settings, to get the results that "look right"...

I know from my experience using a manual SLR that it can be suprising how much light you need, the experience of our eyes is not the same as the camera.

A photo looking directly out of a window will have a huge amount of contrast compared to one perpendicular to a window, so you will get 2 very different photos from the same lighting conditions.

I was wondering if the next step would be to take a photo, noting all the settings of ISO, shutter etc. and compare this to your render. I don't have access to a room using the sorts of luminaires in your photo, I presume from your work you may do?

This would give a better reference and would probably help renders in the future...

I expect people have done similar things in the past, but I haven't seen any...

Thanks acquiesse,

I don't have access to a room like this either (I work primarily out of my own home). But I like the idea of doing a comparitive analysis with a similar room. Just have to find one now....

[Kabe]

So If I'm understand your explanation in your post on vignetting then my camera angle reletive to the angle of my emitters is causing this vignetting effect?

No, it's even simpler: It's just the image angle at any given image point.

The more you are away from the image center, the darker the image will
be. Moving or rotating cam or emitteres won't change a thing in this regard.

Would it be safe to say that since my camera's direction of view is parrallel to the emitters orientation vignetting occurs. If adjust me camera angle to be other than parrallel to the emitters this would compensate for the effect?

The only way to compensate would be to weight the energy based on the
image angle, either by adjustments during sampling or during the image
conversion.

Currently there's not much you can do beside using a tele lens.

Yes, it blows, I know, I tried to make cubis panoramas using M~R...

Kabe

[ricardo]

I had the camara on my lap while reading this, so took a reference pic:

Nikon D70s, ISO 400, f/4.5, 1/60s:



It's obvious that the camera missed the point on white balance and I could use some longer exposure, but no tripods at hand...

The kitchen is 16 sq meters, all white ceiling and walls, grey floor , with four of these tubes:



Ricardo

[lsega77]

I had the camara on my lap while reading this, so took a reference pic...

Awww, Ricardo, you didn't have to go and clean up your kitchen just for meee... (God you should see mine... )

Thanks, I appreaciate the reference pic indeed. I think with these types of lights, the ceiling is going to be relatively dark no matter what (well at least in relation to the rest of the scene).

Just as an FYI to anyone following this. I'm currently working on a textured version of the scene. Textures are playing a big role in how light is being transmitted I think and I think the scene is at a good point to take it to the next level.

[ricardo]

I had the camara on my lap while reading this, so took a reference pic...

Awww, Ricardo, you didn't have to go and clean up your kitchen just for meee... (God you should see mine... )

- That's the way it is... I was a messy guy misself, but my wife straightned me in no time after we moved in together...


Ricardo

[lsega77]

I had the camara on my lap while reading this, so took a reference pic...

Awww, Ricardo, you didn't have to go and clean up your kitchen just for meee... (God you should see mine... )

- That's the way it is... I was a messy guy misself, but my wife straightned me in no time after we moved in together...


Ricardo

My wife says I'm still in training. Now that I learned to put the toilet seat down, she's willing to make me breakfast

[ricardo]

The toilet seat was the first (and toughest) lesson... keep up with it!

[misterasset]

I've been following the updates and the third one is the one you should work with the most. The fourth one may have the best results, but being in architecture I can tell you that they would never space the lights that close together. The usual distance between 2x4 lights is usually at least 4x4.

Other than that, I am impressed with your commitment to getting this image to work. I would have given up long ago. Kudos to you!

[Kabe]

I had the camara on my lap while reading this, so took a reference pic:

Nikon D70s, ISO 400, f/4.5, 1/60s

This is not reference pict... well it is, but again for natural vignetting!

Obviously you have used a wide angle lens, so you have natural vignetting
in your picture as well... it really is near to inevitable in RL

Natural vignetting is completely normal in real life picts, yet it is missed in
most CG picts. Some part of the M~R realism might be attributed to that btw.

Cheers

Kabe