Macko-San
01-12-2006, 10:00 AM
I´m attempting a photorealistic rendering of a room, and I´m using inverse square falloff on the lights since I have understod that is the way real light behaves.
But controlling the light intensity across the scene seem to be a real problem. Some areas apear to bright (overexposed) and some to dark. I´ve been trying to correct this by experimenting with the multiplier and decay start values for the lights. But this is a pain since testrenders take so much time. Overall my sceen apear to bright and lacking contrast. Just plain and dull.
So my question is if there is any need to use any decay on the lights when I´m using GI? GI alone might suply enough variation in the shading?
The room has three flouresent lights in the celling, a small light in the window, and three small lights on a shellf in the room illuminating the shellf. I´m thinking about not using any falloff on the flouresent tubes, thereby making the main illumination easier to control, and use decay on the small lights to provide variation in the illumination in those local areas.
What do you guys think?
But controlling the light intensity across the scene seem to be a real problem. Some areas apear to bright (overexposed) and some to dark. I´ve been trying to correct this by experimenting with the multiplier and decay start values for the lights. But this is a pain since testrenders take so much time. Overall my sceen apear to bright and lacking contrast. Just plain and dull.
So my question is if there is any need to use any decay on the lights when I´m using GI? GI alone might suply enough variation in the shading?
The room has three flouresent lights in the celling, a small light in the window, and three small lights on a shellf in the room illuminating the shellf. I´m thinking about not using any falloff on the flouresent tubes, thereby making the main illumination easier to control, and use decay on the small lights to provide variation in the illumination in those local areas.
What do you guys think?