[Mihai]

you're an arrogant snob

[deesee]

giacob, you're right and think you missed that I agree with you...I get more light into my real-world apartment and it faces NNE!! That was my point...I had to add light, which is what I think you're saying.

adehus, that is exactly a noon angle...on Dec 12. The sun is relatively low, as I'm sure you know.

[iandavis]

deesee,

it's a great scene!

My only real point was to get across the idea that inside is much darker then our brain tells us... so to light balance with outside you either must bring outside down, like during sunset, or bring inside up with several 1000w bank lights...

I'm looking forward to seeing if this makes a difference with noise. I'm betting the inside is basically underexposed.

Light your scene so with the same settings except:

camera fstop 22, ISO 100. Then increase the lights until it is correctly lit. This actually will increase the amount of light mathmatically quite a bit.

PHOTO info... ignore if it's something you already know.
1 stop = 2x or 1 half as much light. from f16 to f22 there is half as much light let in. So, if f22 represents 1 unit of light, f4 would be 32 units of light.

The ISO and shutterspeed are also calibrated in 'stops'. Each doubling of the ISO also doubles the film's sensitivity, and more obviously shutterspeed also works in stops. 1/60th is half as much light as 1/30th, so ISO100/f22/250th sec lets in approximately 128 times less light then your render settings. Thus, in order to expose the scene properly you need to jack up the lighting 128x. That's a LOT more light in the scene and a LOT less noise. So a 100W emitter should be bumped to be a 12800W emitter. Though I doubt it would work exactly mathmatically due to the nature of light.. Try starting at 1500-2000w x 2 or 3 emitters for the scene.


anyway, keep up the good renderin dude

Giacob,

You still don't seem to get it. Ponder this. Why would they need a special format for HDRL? Due to the fact that one image "exposure" was not capable of rendering the entire dynamic range of the normal environment. What you are looking at right now is one snapshot along a spectrum. Lighten it up, the shadows have detail, the hilights dont, darken down, the shadows loose detail, the highlights have them. Any photograph (without the addition of balancing agents (lights)) is a compromise. You can NEVER capture the full dynamic range with todays mediums, including the human eye. So to say that deesee's render is wrong for your idea of how it should look is like saying that a photograph of a person backlit by pure white light from a window is wrong, simply because there are no outside details. Dude, it's just the nature of capturing 10 cents worth from a 5 dollar bucket of light. Really has nothing to do with Maxwell but instead that we can only see one slice of reality at a time... unless that is, if you have HDReyes. hehe. sorry, I made a funny.


Ian.