Indigo 2.4 - Don't Make Me Think

[neo0.]

It is necessary to enter тег which would hide portals, it is in максвелле, Fray render.Это it is necessary at least to illuminate dark places where light badly gets, and not only. It would be desirable to have a complete control over illumination and its tunings of a scene. Perhaps, to apply light sources with soft shades. To have more advanced tunings on colour correction. To have filter Bloom, Glare.и others... Improved display IEC of files, work with IEC is more than 90 degrees. At INDIGO a problem with a corner on фонгу. It is necessary to dump it to 0, for prevention of occurrence of black stains

Google translator gets the job done again? Haha just kidding, Prof4D.

Anyhow, I've thought about it would like to see a background tab where you can add in a background image. Yes, I know about HDRs and they are good for lighting your scene, but they don't exactly work well when they themselves are part of the scene. Plus, there are only so many HDRIs. For example, there aren't many HDRIs for space (having to choose from handful of HDRIs that have been made by others limits your creativity substantially.) I also know about alpha masking and this works good, but I think it would be best to keep everything part of the same process. I also have tried using an illuminated plane, and while this is okay, it's hard to get it to look good along with the rest of your scene.. It complicates tonemapping..

So, what would it do? You would get to load in your image from any common format (PNG, jpeg, etc.) and then tell indigo how to map it (so it would be kind of like a skybox I guess.) You could choose from spherical or "flat" mapping. You might also be able to choose the distance between it and the camera. Perhaps even some sort of a widget to adjust the scale, position, etc..

[Doug Armand]

Remember that this is a unbiased renderer, which is why a lot of us use it, and lets try and keep it that way? all your asking can be done in biased renderers such as 3ds Max. Maybe you need to reconsider your tools of choice?

[neo0.]

It doesn't seem any less unbiased than mapping your background to a flat emitting plane.

[Doug Armand]

It doesn't seem any less unbiased than mapping your background to a flat emitting plane.

That creates a physical object which reacts like other objects so to me thats fine

[Zom-B]

It doesn't seem any less unbiased than mapping your background to a flat emitting plane.

The Flat emitting plane at least does emit light and appears in reflections and interacts with the scene.

I really think there are 1001 more needed feature than saving some people a few minutes PS work!
Since in the most scenarios where you change the Background (via previous Alpha Render etc.),
you also tweak color, contrast etc. of the scenario to fit the fake BG with the rendering...

Your Feature Request would just complicate such post fine tuning for real artists

[neo0.]

So, if a background is added in via photoshop, does it makes indigo less unbiased? Whether it is added with post pro or while you are rendering, it wouldn't make a difference because it doesn't interact with the scene in either case. It would, however, be much more artist friendly. BTW, indigo could do refraction/reflection with the background tool as well..

[Doug Armand]

So, if a background is added in via photoshop, does it makes indigo less unbiased? Whether it is added with post pro or while you are rendering, it wouldn't make a difference because it doesn't interact with the scene in either case. It would, however, be much more artist friendly. BTW, indigo could do refraction/reflection with the background tool as well..

If it is added in post-pro then it doesn't affect what Indigo does period and therefore has gone beyond the unbiased phase?.

If anything gets 'added' whilst in Indigo then it should affect the rendered result as in reflections, light, colour, etc - otherwise the end result is, in my opinion and I'm certainly no expert, unrealistic and unbiased.

Again I say if you want these 'features' why not use another tool that is designed for that? Why are you always trying to turn Indigo into something it's not?

As always this is just my opinion but I would prefer that the developers time was spent elsewhere rather than on adding bells & whistles that aren't really needed

[Zom-B]

So, if a background is added in via photoshop, does it makes indigo less unbiased? Whether it is added with post pro or while you are rendering, it wouldn't make a difference because it doesn't interact with the scene in either case.

You relay don't want to understand this, right??!
Indigos rendering Process is unbiased and always will be (hopefully!).
What the artist, or you neo0, does with the image after this rendering process is totally up to him/her!
But the rendering process in Indigo will stay... guess it....yes, unbiased!

It would, however, be much more artist friendly.

No, as I told you... it would be more neo0. friendly... not friendlier for real artists!

BTW, indigo could do refraction/reflection with the background tool as well..

Yes, if the render would restart! At some point in a workflow scenario like in Octanerender this would make sense, since here tweaking EVERYTHING during rendertime is the big feature!

[gabriel]

Has anyone mentioned the overpowered zoom in?

[Godzilla]

Has anyone mentioned the overpowered zoom in?

No but thank you for bringing that up. The ability to zoom in (or out) 100,000% or more is kind of ridiculous.. perhaps it should be limited to 1000%? And maybe you guys could add a 'fit to window' option as well as proper zoom increments (Which has already been suggested, just bringing it up again).

[neo0.]

You relay don't want to understand this, right??!
Indigos rendering Process is unbiased and always will be (hopefully!).
What the artist, or you neo0, does with the image after this rendering process is totally up to him/her!
But the rendering process in Indigo will stay... guess it....yes, unbiased!

What if the background played no role in your render (as in it didn't interact with light)? Then it wouldn't affect the unbiased nature of indigo.

Indigo
1. Background => add background

Photoshop
1. Make make render transparent
2. Add in background

Either way, the background doesn't interfere or affect the render in any way, so again, I fail to see what the difference is.

[fused]

Has anyone mentioned the overpowered zoom in?

No but thank you for bringing that up. The ability to zoom in (or out) 100,000% or more is kind of ridiculous.. perhaps it should be limited to 1000%? And maybe you guys could add a 'fit to window' option as well as proper zoom increments (Which has already been suggested, just bringing it up again).

aleady did that for 2.4.

max zoom is 41000% or something like that and min 1%. Maybe ill change it to an even more limited range.

zoom always increments by 20%, i think thats quite reasonable?

[fused]

I fail to see what the difference is.

The difference is, is that Indigo is not an image processing software, its a render engine. It processes 3D data.

[Doug Armand]

Either way, the background doesn't interfere or affect the render in any way, so again, I fail to see what the difference is.

Which is exactly the problem. If you have something in your scene then it should affect it. Even a simple plane with an image on it should. For example in real life a billboard with an advertisement on it will affect it's immediate environment - it would cast shadows, the board and advert would be reflected in shiny objects, etc.

What your asking for can be very easily done now anyway by just rendering an alpha mask and post-processing in PShop. Why would you want/need to have something like this in Indigo when it is so easily done in PShop?

[neo0.]

Because it saves time?