My opinion is to use only a total of rgb 1.5 in lighting on any one surface,
and that means any shadowless fill light counts as being shone upon all
surfaces.  Unless of course you are trying for an extrordinary effect or
something.
By saying "total" that would be like 4 lights of color rgb 0.125, rgb 0.125,
rgb 0.25, and rgb 1.0 for example.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

what do you know, that's pretty much the way i lit my last scene.  i
used light groups via megapov.  the sun was the main light and affected
all objects.  and there is a fill between the planet and the xwing that
only affects the xwing.  i've studied photography a little and i
recommend it to anyone creating images in any medium.  your advice is
sound mr. day.  however, model showcases are the exception to this rule
of thumb wouldn't you agree?  scenes deserve great lighting but when
showing off of models there should be enough light to see by.  because
of the stars, i'd say this was a scene.

"H. E. Day" wrote:
> 
> Zeger,
> This is a wonderful model.  The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
> Let me share a secret with you.  The secret to great lighting is to *never*
> (and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
> mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
> crappy.Here is what I suggest.
> 
> FaintFillLight          Main Light
>         Object
> 
> Camera
> 
> This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well.  The faint,
> "fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current main
> light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
> other side of the model.  Also, bring it closer to the front.  You can even
> leave the intensity at 1.5.  Or, alternatively, you could change the
> intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location.  This
> will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
> 
> I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
> that bugs me the most.
> 
> H.E. Day
> <><

Post a reply to this message

oh, and i always use radiosity for final renders.  if you think the
underlying color of my xwing isn't white enough (and if you look at the
texture in moray it is very white), you should see it without radiosity.
besides, the shadows just seem better to me than low-intensity fill
lights do. 

ryan constantine wrote:
> 
> what do you know, that's pretty much the way i lit my last scene.  i
> used light groups via megapov.  the sun was the main light and affected
> all objects.  and there is a fill between the planet and the xwing that
> only affects the xwing.  i've studied photography a little and i
> recommend it to anyone creating images in any medium.  your advice is
> sound mr. day.  however, model showcases are the exception to this rule
> of thumb wouldn't you agree?  scenes deserve great lighting but when
> showing off of models there should be enough light to see by.  because
> of the stars, i'd say this was a scene.
> 
> "H. E. Day" wrote:
> >
> > Zeger,
> > This is a wonderful model.  The only beef I've got is with the lighting.
> > Let me share a secret with you.  The secret to great lighting is to *never*
> > (and I do mean never) put a main light *anywhere* near the camera. This
> > mistake is what makes those newbie 3DS and Lightwave rendering look so
> > crappy.Here is what I suggest.
> >
> > FaintFillLight          Main Light
> >         Object
> >
> > Camera
> >
> > This is a top view of a lighting scheme that works pretty well.  The faint,
> > "fill" light (try <.2,.2,.25> and shadowless) would be at your current main
> > light location. Take the main light you have now and move it over to the
> > other side of the model.  Also, bring it closer to the front.  You can even
> > leave the intensity at 1.5.  Or, alternatively, you could change the
> > intensity to 1 and make a .5, shadowless, light at the same location.  This
> > will give a slight radiosity effect with no render overhead.
> >
> > I'm sorry if I sounded preachy, but this is the single lighting mistake
> > that bugs me the most.
> >
> > H.E. Day
> > <><

Post a reply to this message

Most excellent... My applause... I wish my hand codes were as detailed as
you have done here... =)

> > I like it... Keep going...
> Tnx
>
> > Hand code...?
> Completely hand-coded.
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

In 14 days you should get about eighty frames done at 4hrs/frame...
Try 320X240... Usually makes a good movie size...?

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

> >
> > You could always just try to imagine it is in an action scene then.  Or
> use a
> > tiny, microscopic, resolution.
> Or let it render while I'm on vacation.  When I come back (2 weeks later)
> I'll see it has finally reached frame 10 of 100 :-)
>
> > Bob
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

Moon47 <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in berichtnieuws
39713596.7DE43352@earthlink.net...
> In 14 days you should get about eighty frames done at 4hrs/frame...
> Try 320X240... Usually makes a good movie size...?
You've actually been calculating it? :-)
How bored can you be :-)
320*240 is small.  I would go for at least 400*300.

But you forgot one thing: when doing an animation, it would probably fly
close by the camera.  A close-up won't render that 'fast'.
But, then again: there would be frames where the falcon looks like 2 pixels
:-)

ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

No not that bored... That is just my usual setting for an animation... Fair
resolution w/ fair speed ratio... Also minimal size for posting a still... Not
very detail sensitive although... =(

Zeger Knaepen wrote:

> You've actually been calculating it? :-)
> How bored can you be :-)
> 320*240 is small.  I would go for at least 400*300.
>
> But you forgot one thing: when doing an animation, it would probably fly
> close by the camera.  A close-up won't render that 'fast'.
> But, then again: there would be frames where the falcon looks like 2 pixels
> :-)
>
> ZK
> http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message

I found out how long patch objects take to parse when I was doing test
renders of my yet-to-be-finished Pod House. 740+ objects took about 3
hours to parse, followed by just over one hour to render. I'm trying to
figure out how to best replace as many of them with things like height
fields. Hopfully that will yeld more reasonable parse/render times.

Ken Matassa

Post a reply to this message

wow! 3 hours!  i would've done something about it a long time ago.  good
luck with your conversions!

Ken Matassa wrote:
> 
> I found out how long patch objects take to parse when I was doing test
> renders of my yet-to-be-finished Pod House. 740+ objects took about 3
> hours to parse, followed by just over one hour to render. I'm trying to
> figure out how to best replace as many of them with things like height
> fields. Hopfully that will yeld more reasonable parse/render times.
> 
> Ken Matassa

Post a reply to this message

Moon47 <rdm### [at] earthlinknet> schreef in berichtnieuws
3973C6F0.E299513B@earthlink.net...
> No not that bored... That is just my usual setting for an animation...
Fair
> resolution w/ fair speed ratio... Also minimal size for posting a still...
Not
> very detail sensitive although... =(
Have you ever posted a still of 320*240?  For an animation it might be ok,
but for a still?
I don't know...

ZK
http://www.povplace.be.tf

Post a reply to this message