Ethin's Art and ... stuff.

Sven Dullah · January 22

Ah, but if you hide the heavy stuff in viewport (parameters/visibility/visible in viewport), does that help with navigating?

And I don't quite get why they would render darker, unless the opacity maps are actually not pure black and white, or you have the wrong image gamma value for the offending maps? If gamma correction is ON, the image gamma for transmaps should be 1. If not, strange things like uber-long rendertimes could start happening...

Ethin · January 23

Uh..... wait, gamma correction is suppose to be on? I always leave it off because it makes everything look terrible.

Sven Dullah · January 23

Oh no......

I suggest you read my guidelines regarding a linear workflow here: Setting up the ds default shader for a linear workflow

Sure, it's focusing on the default shader, but what matters is the lines about gamma settings. I've been strictly following my own advice for a decade or so;)

Ethin · January 23

...nope, it still makes everything look terrible to me.

After several hours of working with gamma correction I was unable to obtain results that looked anywhere near as good as what I get without it or that I was happy with. So unless there is some super compelling reason as to why I should be using it...

Sven Dullah · January 24

...and you set gamma to 2.20?

Edited to add: A linear workflow is certainly not as simple as turning GC on and setting gamma to 2.20 and hit render. It involves monitoring image gamma values, as very few old products are set up for it. And,furthermore, it means to be careful with extremes like pure white and black colors, pure white specular/reflections, 100% reflection strength and the likes. Lighting will behave differently, especially if you don't use quadratic light falloff.

But, if you persist, you may notice colors are better, shadows are better, light looks more dynamic and does not require as much intensity, things behave more predictably, to put it short.

But who am I to try and force my workflows on you, you have a workflow of your own, obviously, and your renders prove it. I just think your rendertimes suffer a bit, that's all, which is where this discussion started;)

Ethin · January 24

Yes, it looks flat and washed out to me. I tried a dozen different values between 1 and 2.2 and couldn't find a happy median, I also tried adjusting the lighting and surface settings to no real avail.

Ethin · January 24

Those test where done using ubersurface, and after some more work I found I could make it look a bit less flat by turning off the velvet and either ditching the spec map and setting spec at 40-60 or leaving the map and turning spec up to 160. Also found turning off subsurface scatter and translucency had no effect on the look.

Also tried AOA SSS, it appeared even more washed out.

Sven Dullah · January 24

...a link on why use GC, if you're interested...

https://www.vfxwizard.com/tutorials/gamma-correction-for-linear-workflow.html

...highlighting some stuff from the article here:

I. The no-nonsense approach to Gamma

Gamma is a mathematical function, and most people know it is somehow related to the way a computer screen displays the colors and how the human eye perceives them.

Images which are not Gamma Corrected exhibit an harsh contrast with lack of detail in shadow and highlights areas. Also, physically correct lighting does not look right.

This happens because rendering calculations are performed in something called a linear color space. Which is just a fancy word to express a simple concept: if we multiply by two a pixel's value, the resulting pixel will be twice as bright. Sounds pretty logical.

However this is not how our eyes perceive colors. Twice the luminous intensity does not mean that we perceive twice as much brightness. In dark regions adding even a slight amount of light will be perceived as doubling the brightness. In lighter regions, a lot more light would be needed to achieve the same result.

To convert linear images as produced by the rendering software into tones suitable to our eyes a correction is needed. This Gamma Correction maps the linear intensities to a different representation that is finally perceived correctly.

Note: This has nothing to do with monitor gamma calibration. Even on a perfectly calibrated monitor, an uncorrected rendering appears wrong. Monitor gamma calibration is a separate step that compensates for monitor's own display characteristics but images are supposed to be in gamma space to be properly displayed.

Given that every software has a Gamma Correction filter or control, it would seem very easy to solve this issue.

Unfortunately simply applying Gamma Correction to an existing rendering will not produce a better looking image. Instead, the image will probably look washed out and lacking in contrast. This is where most people give up with Gamma Correction. What's supposed to make images look better totally ruins them.

Renderings have to be produced from the beginning with Gamma Correction in mind. An image that looks good without Gamma Correction, has already been artistically corrected with a lot of texture and lights tweaking. Adopting Gamma Correction improves the artist's workflow and produces results that are both visually and technically correct.

Ethin · January 24

Thanks for the article, I also did some of my own research so there wasn't much new info there. However like you highlighted, in order for it to look good to me I'll have to learn to use the lights and shaders with it.

Ethin · January 24

But then again, if I was trying for more realism I'd probably be better off switching to IRay.

Sven Dullah · January 24

...on the other hand, with a PBR render like IRay, you could argue that a linear workflow is even more important...

...anyway, for me, consistancy is more important than realism, and knowing that, if I set up my stuff under the harsh and unforgiving lookdev light rig I use, I can drop my characters/props into any environment/light condition I've created, with minimal adjusting, which saves me time...

Ethin · February 1

Ok, I think I've done my due diligence with the gamma correction. I still mostly prefer the look of non-linear over linear, my preference may change over time though, that being said if I feel an image will benefit from it I use it.

non-linear

linear

Sven Dullah · February 1

Hey, I'm glad you took the time to go through that process ! Now you can base your decisions on experience and knowledge, which can't be a bad thing...

And, biased as I am, I very much prefer the second one, great scene:-)

Ethin · February 2

Recently picked up Forest Prince Clothing and of course had to see what it was all about. Looking it over by it's self is well and good but then you got to put it on someone for full effect and naturally I couldn't use the figure it was made for so H3 it is... and things just went from there. Still kinda of just a sketch, if I wasn't so lazy and sunlight deprived I'd put together an actual texture but the the stuff I had on hand works for now.

Got an Idea for an image to use this handsome hunk of wood and that other moss covered miscreant^^^, and of course it has lots of trees so I'll have to find ones with "real" leaves so 3DL can handle them better. I'll also need to make a dozen or so other wood "statues", but the camera will be behind them so they can be clones more or less and it won't be too obvious.

I might get around to it... sometime.

richardandtracy · February 2

Rather than wood statues, could they be Male Dryads (Drus)? Rare & not often seen because they're a lot woodier than the dryads.

Regards,

Richard

Ethin · February 2

I've had Rasta Tails for a few months, I played around with them some when I first got them but didn't put them on a figure at the time. Finally got around to putting them on someone, naturally it was A3, and one thing led to another...

For now I'm calling her Acacia but it's kinda just a stupid place holder, I don't know why the second "ugliest" wood in Minecraft was the first thing to come to mind for such a beauty.

Ethin · February 2

richardandtracy said:

Rather than wood statues, could they be Male Dryads (Drus)? Rare & not often seen because they're a lot woodier than the dryads.

Regards,

Richard

The idea for the setting is the forest spirit version of a ruined castle where the inhabitants had be turned to stone. Mysterious, a bit creepy, and sad.