Author Topic: Why do we need range 43-240 for diffuse?  (Read 4828 times)

2016-11-13, 10:17:48
Reply #15

vkiuru

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
I too would like come clarification on the subject. It's not too long ago since BBB3 and others convinced (or rather shed information to their own workflow) that you shouldn't go over RGB range 160-180 for white and this new method skyrockets way above this.

And yes the new suggested dark coal material looks washed out at default so I guess it's a matter of lowering ISO to get the whites to an accectable range, while at the same time the new proposed max blackish value of RGB 43,43,43 would in turn actually look pretty black? I haven't had the time to test this yet but I'm super critical about the whole idea so please if anyone has done any actual tests even with an empty room (but a closed space nevertheless so the light just doesn't bounce in to space the first second) sized with the to extreme values in form of white walls and blacks repsesened with teapot/boxes or realt furniture to show how shadows look and having it look like natural white and black values without Photoshop post processing I would be eager to see your results.

This is a confusing area because the rules seem to change every too years. And to follow up with a closing question, if I have wall painted with a really white paint, say RGB 210, with the light bouncin' around more and the "new black" being RGB 43, wouldn't this kill all the contrast from shadows because of the significantly whiter diffuse/albedo, thus light bouncing way too must in the corners and other shadowed aras? Just a straight up question to which I'm hoping the solution is not to increase contrast in Photoshop since that is not the way I need to manipulate my images when shooting with a DSLR camera.

I hope I made myself clear, just woke up and had me first coffee :)

Thanks if anyone could shed more info on this!

2016-11-13, 13:15:09
Reply #16

Fluss

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 544
    • View Profile
well you should read this : http://viscorbel.com/vray-materials-part-1-diffuse/
By using real world values, you know that light bounces and energy behave like in real world. What you obtain in the end can be regarded as a RAW image taken with a DSLR. When you first look at it, it looks dull but once graded it looks like what you are used to :

https://www.slrlounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/03-raw-vs-jpeg-contrast-blacks-brightness.jpg
« Last Edit: 2016-11-13, 13:34:14 by Fluss »

2016-11-13, 14:14:53
Reply #17

astudio

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
    • A-Studio

2016-11-13, 17:52:59
Reply #18

vkiuru

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
well you should read this : http://viscorbel.com/vray-materials-part-1-diffuse/
By using real world values, you know that light bounces and energy behave like in real world. What you obtain in the end can be regarded as a RAW image taken with a DSLR. When you first look at it, it looks dull but once graded it looks like what you are used to :

https://www.slrlounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/03-raw-vs-jpeg-contrast-blacks-brightness.jpg

Thanks for the link, I've read it before but I'll give it more tought his time around. I'm still doubtful because I've been around long enough to see the "correct" workflow been found time and time again, until the next wave comes around :D But yes at the end of the day I want energy behavior like in the real world, so it's worth a shot if it gets the contrast between light and shadow more correct.