Author Topic: Tonemapping - Plz Halp  (Read 83535 times)

2020-05-03, 17:53:19
Reply #120

lolec

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile

Agree. Built-in tonemapping really? I need to give fstorm a try and fiddle with it.



This is what I've been saying. Corona should move the defaults to be tonemapped and more photographic instead of the plain meh look it has now as default.

2020-05-03, 18:08:47
Reply #121

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
We did that one year ago, and the survey results ended with more people saying that the photo was the render :)

I like to check these "real or fake" surveys out of curiosity and for fun, but unfortunately most of them make no sense at all. Most even lame renders look "real" in small resolution. In most cases to find out if you're dealing with CGI or photo all you need to do is zoom in.

What was the resolution of compared pictures, were they the same size? It's not an accusation, just asking.

2020-05-03, 19:00:13
Reply #122

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
We did that one year ago, and the survey results ended with more people saying that the photo was the render :)

I like to check these "real or fake" surveys out of curiosity and for fun, but unfortunately most of them make no sense at all. Most even lame renders look "real" in small resolution. In most cases to find out if you're dealing with CGI or photo all you need to do is zoom in.

What was the resolution of compared pictures, were they the same size? It's not an accusation, just asking.


You are right, yes and no... :) Pics with incorrect light calculation, color mapping, etc. look fake even in veeeery small size. :)))


2020-05-03, 19:06:29
Reply #123

Giona

  • Primary Certified Instructor
  • Active Users
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
    • Giona Andreani 3D Visualization
We did that one year ago, and the survey results ended with more people saying that the photo was the render :)

I like to check these "real or fake" surveys out of curiosity and for fun, but unfortunately most of them make no sense at all. Most even lame renders look "real" in small resolution. In most cases to find out if you're dealing with CGI or photo all you need to do is zoom in.

What was the resolution of compared pictures, were they the same size? It's not an accusation, just asking.

In the comments there were the two images in higher resolution.
I'm attaching them here.
But keep in mind that the survey was made for fun. I made the image in order to test and showcase the new caustics feature when it was released.
If you look at the images in high res, is quite obvious which one is the photo :)

2020-05-03, 19:36:40
Reply #124

BardhylM

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
    • Behance
That photo looks so unrealistic, cameras should start using Fstorm tone mapping. I mean we do not need to have neutral results from render engine and apply our artistic choices.
We want Corona to do our job, completely. What's the point on putting materials and tweak the lights...etc... Why cant we have a "make my work" button.
And in the end, Corona is such a sweetheart, not trying to bash or anything... heehee.

- That is how some of you sound here, if you have not figure it out still.
I've been lurking here and don't get engaged in topics, mostly because they are always helpful and it's held up by really good members that keep on giving.
But this "Fstorm gud, others bed" has no place here i think. Yes it's been discussed here about tone mapping and ACES and everything, in a more educated approach.
Not in a "I think this looks better than this" approach, when there are biased views.

To everyone sorry for sounding so hostile, and making the forum a little bitter. Not my intention, I just had to...back in my cave again.


2020-05-03, 19:40:01
Reply #126

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
That photo looks so unrealistic, cameras should start using Fstorm tone mapping. I mean we do not need to have neutral results from render engine and apply our artistic choices.
We want Corona to do our job, completely. What's the point on putting materials and tweak the lights...etc... Why cant we have a "make my work" button.
And in the end, Corona is such a sweetheart, not trying to bash or anything... heehee.

- That is how some of you sound here, if you have not figure it out still.
I've been lurking here and don't get engaged in topics, mostly because they are always helpful and it's held up by really good members that keep on giving.
But this "Fstorm gud, others bed" has no place here i think. Yes it's been discussed here about tone mapping and ACES and everything, in a more educated approach.
Not in a "I think this looks better than this" approach, when there are biased views.

To everyone sorry for sounding so hostile, and making the forum a little bitter. Not my intention, I just had to...back in my cave again.



Understanding your irony... however, I guess no-one of us here asks for a "do my work" button, only a "give me a base that works as expected". :)


2020-05-03, 19:47:21
Reply #127

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
We did that one year ago, and the survey results ended with more people saying that the photo was the render :)

I like to check these "real or fake" surveys out of curiosity and for fun, but unfortunately most of them make no sense at all. Most even lame renders look "real" in small resolution. In most cases to find out if you're dealing with CGI or photo all you need to do is zoom in.

What was the resolution of compared pictures, were they the same size? It's not an accusation, just asking.

In the comments there were the two images in higher resolution.
I'm attaching them here.
But keep in mind that the survey was made for fun. I made the image in order to test and showcase the new caustics feature when it was released.
If you look at the images in high res, is quite obvious which one is the photo :)




Without clicking on the images I would say that the first one is 3D.
Super hard shadows on the doors, light is too cold despite the warm wooden tone of the floor, too extreme caustic... colors somehow do not harmonize.

2020-05-03, 19:58:35
Reply #128

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile

2020-05-03, 20:10:21
Reply #129

twoheads

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile

2020-05-03, 20:46:53
Reply #130

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile


10,11,13,14,15 look definitely better and more photorealistic than others. To be honest I thought they were photos.

I won ;)
[/quote]


Interesting... to me 10 looked super fake... the reflection on the floor slates, the tone of that little wooden furniture, the over saturation of the picture frame on the right,
the dull color tones... :)))))

Number 11 indeed looks nice... however it has visibly massive post work in it.

Look at 8 & 9... that smooth light changes without losing contrasts too much, without burning red tones in the woods, compression with less lost details, etc...
Typical characteristics of what I saw from FStorm until now.
And the image looks like having only minimal post work.
The eye can literally rest in that contrasts & tone mapping... THE typical difference I usually notice between photos and 3D with incorrect tone mapping, contrasts, etc.





2020-05-03, 20:59:07
Reply #131

PROH

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 1199
    • View Profile
Hmmm.... To me number 8 & 9 are super dull - clamped highlights and grey'ish.

I think nr. 10 definately looks better and more (a)live.

Are we talking taste and style?

2020-05-03, 21:17:59
Reply #132

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 784
    • View Profile
Are we talking taste and style?
No. Just realism.

To me too, #10 and #11 are the best overall, UNTIL I start looking in detail and I realize that nothing is really in focus or has the detail and sharpness of the real thing.
While #8 and #9 overall look kind of 3d-ish (especially the walls), but when I start to look in detail my eyes can focus and the sharpness is there, at least in one point of the image.

Does anyone else agree that with corona is hard to get sharp details? As if the sampling doesn't get deep in small interstices. With fstorm, even if the overall image is not better than corona, the details are superb.

2020-05-03, 21:24:54
Reply #133

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
Are we talking taste and style?
No. Just realism.

To me too, #10 and #11 are the best overall, UNTIL I start looking in detail and I realize that nothing is really in focus or has the detail and sharpness of the real thing.
While #8 and #9 overall look kind of 3d-ish (especially the walls), but when I start to look in detail my eyes can focus and the sharpness is there, at least in one point of the image.

Does anyone else agree that with corona is hard to get sharp details? As if the sampling doesn't get deep in small interstices. With fstorm, even if the overall image is not better than corona, the details are superb.



Yes, I agree with the sharpness point you mention.

2020-05-03, 21:34:32
Reply #134

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
Are we talking taste and style?
No. Just realism.

To me too, #10 and #11 are the best overall, UNTIL I start looking in detail and I realize that nothing is really in focus or has the detail and sharpness of the real thing.
While #8 and #9 overall look kind of 3d-ish (especially the walls), but when I start to look in detail my eyes can focus and the sharpness is there, at least in one point of the image.

Does anyone else agree that with corona is hard to get sharp details? As if the sampling doesn't get deep in small interstices. With fstorm, even if the overall image is not better than corona, the details are superb.



#10 ???
So the fake plastikish shader on the floor (okay, that can be fixed), the strange, muddy wood color on that little furniture, the washed out contrasts on the walls or the visible GI-splotches on the walls don't bother your eye? I also find the displacement on the stone wall looks flat... not 3-dimensional.
Also, lack of detail on that tall brown door... (with the door handle that's too low) :)

Interesting that to my eye this is the weakest picture of all.