Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
An option to set the width and height of the texture would solve the problem.Why not just a simple checkbox "respect aspect ratio"?
it's just this has nothing to do with triplanarI think it has, since triplanar node assumes the texture is squared and because of that it appears distorted. An option to set the width and height of the texture would solve the problem.
To be honest, default tonemapping/processing on current phones is like ACES, +6 Contrast, + 100 Vibrance :- ).
But this is super individual, my iPhone 14 Pro default is like +6 Contrast but -50 Saturation :- ). Very strange look at first, lot closer to ACES than my former Huawei.
But most camera jpeg profiles (straight out of camera) always had deeper contrast in blacks (deeper first half of S-Curve) and boosted contrast in blues (because it increases saturation of Skies, but not of human faces, so it still looks natural but also nice and punchy).What do you think is the best way to recreate this look via Corona tonemapping? I'm talking about the straight out of camera look with deep contrast in black and boosted contrast in skies.
No word on this. You can be assured if there is word, we'd definitely be letting you all know :)
Pulze Scene Manager is your friend here. Admittedly it would be better if it was native to Corona so we didn't have to pay for another piece of software but hey ho
This is a fairly ignorant position to take from an employee of a rendering company that gained its success from physically based rendering without compromise. Ive been doing this for a decade and advocating for corona since beta 0.7 because of the fact that from day 1 it was focussed on accuracy and physically correct rendering and not tweaking dozens of settings to create fakes to make things 'look nice'. Looking nice in large parts of the industry is a by-product of being physically correct and photorealistic. They are not separate end goals. Why would you as a company be so concerned with keeping things physically based and 'unbiased' if you think that as CG artists we only want to make things "look nice". There are amazingly well known and talented artists out there who push their physically correct workflows to the nth degree with as few compromises as possible. The entire design visualisation process is about showing clients what the thing they're building/designing actually looks like as best you can. Not showing them an idealised version of what they want to see. If youre using CG as an iterative design tool as many of us do, then making things look correct rather than look nice is the ONLY requirement.
Yeah thats very cool and the renders look really nice but chances are the deliverables aren't the same as mine in this instance. Nor are they likely to be an accurate representation. They look like really great marketing visuals. What I'm looking to achieve from a design visualisation perspective is to show as accurate a representation of my clients specs as possible and because of the current limitations in all available lighting methods, thats not possible for a stage lighting setup. I don't see any gobos in those renders though that may be down to their design not including them rather than a limitation.Same case here. Result in that video might look "good" but it's not accurate at all. Also, I could never use this workflow where so many things need to be composed and faked to look good for one angle only. My job usually require me to use interactive render to show my clients different angles in real time as they send their inputs until lights are setup correctly. So I need lights to look as they should straight from the IR, no time for post.
Those look pretty cool. The fact that Unreal has such good support for gobos and stage lighting in general makes me think that i should start working towards moving some of my work into Unreal.
