Indigo 1.0.4

psor · Post by **psor** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:54 am

Yes I know *sigh* I write sooooo sloooooooow!

take care
psor

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 am

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:10 am

Thanks for the competitive quick replies guys

.
I'll show ye a screen with my scene sizes.

I'm not sure what units are 'blender-units' or 'Indigo-meters' but I always assumed the grid you see when in perspective 3D view in Blender, were (Indigo) meters.

Tried scaling it up, and back down. I get a nice render, pretty pleased with it, am gonna bake it some more overnight, I need a new PC, but still all is in focus. In this case not a problem, but in some scenes I'd like some dof.

Ready, get set, GO!

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:36 am

that's still with f-stop 2? Amazing how much DoF it has xD should be far more blur...

Yeah, one of the gridlines is 1m, more or less

Blender's Units are relative, which is great for artists, as they can choose, that one BU is one metre or one Kilometre or even one Micrometre, which makes it kinda flexible.
But in real world, you can't shoot all of those scenes with the same camera. Especially with very small scenes, you'll get problems, trying to do that

The DoF nearly entirely gets lost and if you get VERY tiny (smaller than most bacteria), you wont see any light any more, as the light, you'd need, has the wrong spectrum. It's not anymore visible to the human eye. There also are other limtiations... As Indigo aims for highest physical correctness, it simply assumes that your scene is scaled in metres. If you change the world scale in Blendigo (you can't change it in Indigo), your scene will be scaled, by simply multiplying your world scale with the BU.

Big Fan · Post by **Big Fan** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:46 am

as a check you are getting sensible answers from your worldscale setting use focus on 'selected' item - select one in the 3d window first of course - and look at the distance number shown in the script ...so 0.47 = 470mm or 2.4 = 2400mm
I think there is actually something wrong with dof as it is so I have changed things in my blendigo version for a stronger effect
I am not sure what other export writers/hackers have done

dougal2 · Post by **dougal2** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:51 am

I've found the DOF to generally be too strong with MtI, I usually scale my scenes up by 10x.
(Maya's grid is set to 1 square = 1cm square by default, so the correct scale factor for indigo is 0.01, but i usually set mine to 0.1).

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:52 am

Shouldn't be wrong... it's simply using f-stop, which is inverted aperture radius...

Big Fan · Post by **Big Fan** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:54 am

really

too strong...

um thats right kram I modified the aperture radius..
really I dont want to get into discussions about it again

I just note this for interest for Rodger

dougal2 · Post by **dougal2** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:07 am

here's the defaults, with 1cm cubes:

Big Fan · Post by **Big Fan** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:21 am

well I am not sure what I am looking at there cos I dont use maya - but it looks from the 3d window like your native
distance from the camera to the origin is 10 cm? ...macro phototgraphy... even at 10x this its quite um close..
but ok you have an FStop of 50!? (odd size)...and it gives this..

..strange..
but auto focus (which actually focuses indigo on the closest mesh point in the scene ) is set on...
to me it all looks weird..

I dont really know that what you are doing and getting out of this is sensible
how do your materials, lighting and nudge work out correctly for a scene if you are always 10x out with your scale?
to my old eyes it looks like its all out of focus and the in focus bit is away in the distance somewhere..

dougal2 · Post by **dougal2** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:35 am

Actually, i agree it's a bit of a duff test, scenes generally tend to be larger than this and the camera doesn't usually focus this close.

Things usually work out fine, if I keep in mind that each grid square is 10cm rather than 1cm(Maya default) or 1m(pretty much everything else).

Big Fan · Post by **Big Fan** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:46 am

when I was playing around with my aperture fudge factor ( don't tell ono about this

) I noted that anything up real close is not good.. you need very large aperture to get even small dof
if you look at photography books this is actually how it is in the real world too
it was actually the discrepency between my dof calculator and the rendered effect that set me looking at the realism of the dof function..
to my eye what I have done gives more satisfying results but everyone will probably differ about that

I would tend to stay away from macro sized views

Kram1032 · Post by **Kram1032** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:18 pm

Why? macro sized views have less DoF

I would stay away from unreal scales (although noone knows how big such floating cubes would be in reality xD)

Big Fan · Post by **Big Fan** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:54 pm

psor · Post by **psor** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:21 pm

Ya, don't get confused by this ... hahaha!

DOF = depth of field

So yes, small scenes (macro,micro, whatever) have a smaller depth of field.
Which results in a smaller area that is in focus ... so "more" DOF means
a sharper image and "less" DOF means a more unsharp image. I hope
that makes sense. ;o)

I do remember the good old times, when people got confused with
"glossy" reflections ... and some of them still get confused by the
name ...

take care
psor

Indigo 1.0.4

Who is online