Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Fluss

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
The noise is much more evenly distributed across the image, making it less noticeable

2
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 15:45:20 »
We are in 2020. It shouldn't be impossible to write two codes that mimic a cam and an eye 99% correctly, instead of making 3D artist fiddle with curves.

I give you 2hrs, show me :) Just hope you manage to teleport a display capable of human eye dynamic range from 22th century.

3
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 12:29:01 »
TBH I'm fed up with those comparisons.. I'm gonna stop there, the more I dig into it, the more I feel it pointless... I always come to the same conclusion, a renderer is a tool, and if used wisely, you can produce beautiful results with any of them.

4
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 11:00:23 »
Reinstalled Fstorm,  and damn! I don't like it! I forgot how it feels, well, completely different. In a bad way. It seems the glossiness is indeed still mapped from 0.4 to 1.0.

5
I need help / Re: EV vs. Corona EV
« on: 2020-05-07, 10:03:41 »
Thx Maru saved, this could be useful.

6
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 09:43:59 »
This makes me think the more "directional look" of Fstorm is due to heavy GI clamping.

7
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 08:56:25 »
Found out that max ray intensity was the "culprit" in Vray. Disabling it solved the issue. I edit my previous messages, it's kind of a mess. Maybe it would be better to delete them

8
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 08:46:31 »
I downloaded your scene and it worked as expected. But if you try with my camera settings (f4, 1/50s, 1600/12800) and load the HDRi I used for the test (Vraymap, spherical mapping, everything else default), it doesn't work anymore. really strange. Is it the case on your side? (Also, no tone mapping, standard sRGB display)
(Note that with this setup, we're closer to image burn)



9
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-07, 07:40:38 »
I was using renderer's native camera in both. We're definitely experiencing different results here.

10
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-06, 23:25:20 »
For such trivial things as exposure, I expected it to be more or less the same. The thing is that if I raise my ISO from 1600 to 12800 ISO, I should have +3EV.
In corona, a render at  1600ISO, +3EV in post looks more or less the same as a render at 12800 ISO. In Vray, at least in V5 beta, it's not the case.
-> In Vray, I was limited by Max sample intensity.

11
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-06, 22:16:25 »
Well, always though Vray and corona photographic exposure settings would match but after quickly looking at it a bit closer, it does not seems to be the case. I'll try to dig a bit further if I find time. The corona one seems to make more sense at first sight.

edit: confirmed, Vray exposure is wrong limited by MRI, corona is good. So pointless comparison from the start between corona and Vray, forget my posts

Guys, checking the technical side is crucial in those kinds of comparisons, so as explaining the process... Everybody was taking a conclusion on renders with different lighting.... That sucks.

If you are looking for me, I'm hiding. 😂

12
Gallery / Re: Spring 2020/Quarantine Street
« on: 2020-05-06, 17:46:31 »
Crazy details, love the mood too. Really nice job!

13
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-06, 16:23:03 »
Of course it's dull, we're using ACES to compress highlights like crazy. Adding some quick crazy bloom and glare help. Still, there is something strange with the corona exposure in my opinion. ->it's good





14
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-06, 14:32:52 »
Here is what we will consider default exposure for this comparison :

Vray - ACES TM - ISO1600



Now, which of those two renders do you consider correct? Corona is correct

Vray - ACES TM - ISO1600 - +3EV VFB



Vray - ACES TM - ISO12800 (+3EV rendering) - +0EV VFB



I personally made my choice.

edit : after some more thoughts, removed some too early conclusions
edit2 : here is what has been removed. Decided to finally keep it to open the discussion, might be false assumptions :

Now if you look at corona 12800 ISO, it looks like it is not calculating real scene exposure but a base exposure which is then multiplied (like the results we get by increasing exposure in VFB). I'm not really sure what is happening here but that could be an explanation.
-> Vray exposure is limited by max ray intensity


Corona - CURVE + 8HC 12800ISO




15
General Discussion / Re: Tonemapping - Plz Halp
« on: 2020-05-06, 12:51:14 »
hmm ok I understand what you mean, but this requires re-rendering. As with the ACES workflow you can adjust the exposure and get the range you need without blowing out areas, similar to how you would work with a photograph in lightroom.

No, this will happen with ACES too. Look at your ACES example, it's also washed out.  Vray and Corona renders are not exposed the same

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37