CoolColJ's test pics thread

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:09 pm

Thanks for those examples

What I saw, there, was, that it's hard to decide, which of the three first modes is the best.... overall, I'd say, Fattal, but at first glance, it was Reinhard for the first and Durand for the other two. Strange, that Fattal didn't look best, from beginning, but after looking 3 times....

I'd like to have that "our method" in Indigo and/or Violet

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:43 am

Indeed, it would make a nice request.

NOW Reinhard looks dull, but I guess their algorithm has a few more steps than the former. Anyway, looks just *perfect*.

What's next CoolColJ ?

Post by **OnoSendai** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:07 am

The problem with the tonemapping technique described in that paper is that it's interactive, not automatic; you have to mark sections of the image etc..

CTZn · Post by **CTZn** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:19 am

Indeed it has an automatic feature, the question is how effective it is... and looks effective !

http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~danix/itm/Auto/index.html

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am

especially the lowest pic is impresive - it looks like if it has 1 pixelrow more, although the frame doesn't change O.o

amazing!

Must be the far better contrasted pic

carbon · Post by **carbon** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:44 am

by my opinion, Reinhard results looks more photographic, especially on 'Belgium House' example, when you have a photograph of interior during sunny day and the windows are not overexposed, there is something unnatural. i read there that it is inspired by ansel adams zone system. zone system is not something absolute, still have practical boundaries, it is not recommended or even usable to go with under-over / expose-development over 3 fstops, with silver based materials, of course. btw zone system and everything else is gone, we are living in digital age. but our eyes are still used to some visual 'truths', so if we are making 'photoreal' images we have to honor these visual truths to get that photoreal image..

(please, apologize my bad english)

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:55 am

isn't such an algo there, for indigo, at least, to prevent under/overexposured pics?

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:20 am

At least it's nice to have an option to have blown out areas or not.
I admit it does't look natural to not have blown out areas in a photo

original
http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/stmark/before.html

tonemapped - which looks a bit faked somehow
http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/stmark/after.html

I'm actually trying out their tone mapper, Photomatix pro

I would like the interactive tonemapper for Voilet

That's when you need interaction when doing post rendering tonemapping.

I never seem to be able to get the look I want with just Linear or Reinhard, combining both together would be better - interactive tone mapping which seems to combine the best of all methods is the top cookie

And that interactive method is by ILM, the people behind EXR I think

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:23 am

BTW I just realised I could have combined the original and noise cleaned version of that room pic, and just overlay the noised cleaned part of the pic where the dots were to maintain the details of the original with the cleaned areas together in one

yeah it deserves to be rendered larger and cleaner

StompinTom · Post by **StompinTom** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:30 am

carbon wrote:by my opinion, Reinhard results looks more photographic, especially on 'Belgium House' example, when you have a photograph of interior during sunny day and the windows are not overexposed, there is something unnatural. i read there that it is inspired by ansel adams zone system. zone system is not something absolute, still have practical boundaries, it is not recommended or even usable to go with under-over / expose-development over 3 fstops, with silver based materials, of course. btw zone system and everything else is gone, we are living in digital age. but our eyes are still used to some visual 'truths', so if we are making 'photoreal' images we have to honor these visual truths to get that photoreal image..

(please, apologize my bad english)

funny, cuz theres a shitload of research into HDR photography which aims to get rid of blow outs and absolute darkness. the reason it might not 'look natural' is that youre so used to seeing blown out pictures. that assumes that there is only one type of camera, a standard of photorealism, if you will. on top of varying sensitivities and dynamic ranges of different types of film and digital sensors, there is a lot that goes on between the light hitting the receptor and the final image. the camera is just a tool for representing the world in a certain way.

HDR photos:
http://gk.deviantart.com/art/Winter-Sun ... R-44786624
http://zeenigma.deviantart.com/art/5343-50061521

it seems to me that there is a ton of effort to create renderings that look like snapshots from a point and shoot camera instead of treating the renderer like a photographer uses a camera and trying to expose a different reality, bring out something new in the subject.
'photoreal' is actually a very vague term.
i think tools should be used to accomplish something that you cannot, that is their purpose. as such, a renderer comes with its own freedom and advantages over a physical camera that should be embraced and taken to their potential, rather than only replicating existing phenomena.
aie here i am off again.

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:40 am

CTZn wrote:Indeed, it would make a nice request.

NOW Reinhard looks dull, but I guess their algorithm has a few more steps than the former. Anyway, looks just *perfect*.

What's next CoolColJ ?

what's next?

Well I have the final version of the Alien Artifacts pic rendering, up to 8000+ samples now and rendering over 20 hours now, but still not clean enough....
also a cleaner version of the glass room pic -very very slow this one

and I might dabble in a scene for http://www.cgsphere.com for laughs

Indigo represent!
I've downloaded the scene in various formats, but haven't looked at it yet
Might use Sketchup for this one for starts - LOL there probably aren't too many Sketchup and Indigo entries there

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:44 am

StompinTom wrote:
HDR photos:
http://gk.deviantart.com/art/Winter-Sun ... R-44786624
http://zeenigma.deviantart.com/art/5343-50061521

those look strange to my perception - they almost look like renders

not so much the fact you can see the sky that clearly, but with tone mapped photos, the balance of light, darkness and tone is altered

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:34 pm

let the CGsphere games begin

I just might add a few of these into my Alien Artifacts part 2 scene

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:44 pm

Alien Spheres

I'll probably enter one of these, I haven't decided which yet...
I quite like the warmth of the orange one, it has the same colour material as the others, but it's reflecting an orange object

these are all lit by the physical sky+sun, maybe I should try an EXR

object is scaled quite small and looks it, maybe I just scale it back up to add presence

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:06 am

cgsphere 1 3

CoolColJ's test pics thread

Who is online