Le 18-03-17 à 10:39, Kenneth a écrit :
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>> No, I mean, literally, NEVER EVER set radiosity brightness below 1.0 (if
>> you want realistic renders).
> [snip]
> 
> I had to give this info (and Alain's comments) some deep thought-- because until
> now, I've always varied radiosity's brightness to 'balance' the scene lighting
> and look. I've always 'tweaked' it -- reduced it --just to get the scene to have
> the contrast I want. Keeping the rad brightness at 1.0 is a new paradigm shift
> for me(!)
> 
> I now understand the 'technical' need to do so, although it initially gave me
> some worries about the many(?) changes I might have to make to my non-HDR scenes
> that use a light_source. But there's a simple and easy workaround: I can use TWO
> identical image_mapped sky domes or spheres (a trick that has probably been
> mentioned in the newsgroups) along with rad brightness 1.0:
> 
> 1)  the sphere for RADIOSITY lighting only:
>         no_shadow
>         no_image
>         no_reflection
>         finish{ emission *my choice*}  // to get the contrast I want
> 
> 2) the sphere for the VISIBLE sky image (and for reflections in objects):
>        no_shadow
>        no_radiosity
>        finish{emission 1.0} // for an accurate reproduction of the image_map, as
>       // seen in the render
> 
> This probably still amounts to 'tweaking'-- but unless there's a remaining
> technical problem, it works for me.
> 
> And THANKS for correcting my long-held misconceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
If you are using that model, you can use a lower resolution, highly 
blured, version of the light probe for the radiosity part.
But, you don't need to use that method. A single sphere is very good. 
Generaly, if the light probe is to bright for the radiosity, then, it's 
also probably to bright for the reflections. I've seen that case. The 
usual solution is to reduce the global emission value for the probe.

Post a reply to this message