That Curious Light

[ChopinLives81]

Well in my opinion, you'll get the most realistic look from using HDR images ( High Dynamic Range ) or Light Probe images. However, depending on the complexity of the scene the renders may take a long time. Also Mental Ray has a great rendering ability to use GI and Radiosity effects.

Here are some images i did using mental ray and HDR and light probe images.

http://www.indeptharts.com/album_page.php?pic_id=145
http://www.indeptharts.com/album_page.php?pic_id=146
http://www.indeptharts.com/album_page.php?pic_id=149
http://www.indeptharts.com/album_page.php?pic_id=147
http://www.indeptharts.com/album_page.php?pic_id=148

[spiralof5]

Hey thank you very much for posting. First post and all I really appreciate it. But those images do nothing for me. I neeeeeed more convincing. Everyone talks about GI and HDRI. Yeah its awsome for rendering stills. But I am an animator doing animations...........not still pictures. I'm not trying to rip you apart, but those aren't even that good of use I've seen done with HDRI.
And like you said, long render times. I also don't see the use in HDRI or GI if it can't be used properly.

Me and a friend of mine on AIM are having a HUGE argument. He is saying "GI is better than what I can do with regular lighting." Yet I am hearing so many people talk about it not being the magic button. So do you guys feel it appropriate to do one thing because it is better than what you're used to..............or should you do it only if you know how to do it right? I vote for the latter option. Yeah GI looks better than what i'm used to. Even at first glance. But if I rendered out with GI right now and posted it I can already tell there will be people telling me that me GI is incorrect. So in a professional manner, do I use it because its better than my normal lighting skills........or just not use it at all because people are going to recognize the problems.

[ChopinLives81]

well you can you those techniques for animation as well not just stills. Just a consideration..

[Andrew W]

You can use any technique you like provided it renders reliably in the time limit you have been allocated to render it.

A

[rubberduck]

Most of the time I render out a low res image with radiosity and then try and match it with conventional lighting, GI just isn't viable for a lot of people due to time constraints.

[balistic]

GI is for suckers, direct illumination for life!

:p

All kidding aside though, I still prefer the control afforded by direct illumination. GI is great for simulation and visualization, but for more theatrical applications, DI is the way I like to go.

[spiralof5]

I just wanted to say thank you to those who have posted. I think this is awsome. I'd like to see more posts. The poll is just for a general calculation but it really doesn't tell me much. One other thing to think about. Baking radiosity and/or GI. If lights don't change (which in animation studies I learn you shouldn't change lighting much anyway ((that is handled by cut shots to achieve different effects)) and if you do it can be rendered separately and composited) is baking a good option since you only have to render out the information once?

I am aware final render has a new Hyper GI, but as a broke animator I don't have that option. Sounds pretty sweet though and may be the tip of the iceberg for animating good renders.

On a side note would you agree (anyone that uses 3ds max) that there is a difference between Max's Light Tracer and other packages. I see a whole lot of difference. But to someone who doesn't know anything about 3D (general audience) will they be able to tell?

Which brings me back to the last posted quesiton. Is it better to use GI if it looks better than what your used to? Or not animate at all if you don't know what the hell your doing with it.

[jeremybirn]

Originally posted by spiralof5
Is it better to use GI if it looks better than what your used to?

Of course you do what you think looks better. There's a risk that some people will go for an overall SkyDome/HDRI/GI look because it's possible to turn on through software features and looks better than badly done lighting with spot lights, whereas if they did a better job of lighting they might be able to do something more appropriate for each project using a wider range of tools and approaches. That risk shouldn't stop you from using any tool available to you, including GI, but you should just pay attention to learning more about what's possible, especially all the things you can add to a scene with regular lights.

-jeremy

[wizlon]

I started out using direct lighting because that was the only option I had at the time, but when the software included Gi etc.., I changed to that method, what iv'e come to realise is that every job is different and in that respect need to be approached on an individual basis, but the majority of the time now I light with both Radiosity, GI, and direct illumination ie. start with a standard 3 or 4 point light rig and then add radiosity if I can afford the render times. Often I will do a radiosity pass (backdrop only) and comp it on the final render.

[wizlon]

and don't forget, reflector boards.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.