Author Topic: Tonemapping - Plz Halp  (Read 115794 times)

2020-05-07, 15:23:01
Reply #270

Designerman77

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

edit:
Instead of rendering like a photographer, what I mean to say is render as the human eye perceives things.
[/quote]



Yes, bud... that's exactly what I suggested at the beginning of this long discussion.
Make only two modes: 1. behavior like a DSLR.   2. Behavior like a human eye (more less).

When we look at our natural surrounding, we rarely see burnt highlights, black shadows, etc... only in very extreme sunlight situations.
That's because our iris and the brain constantly compensate light dynamic changes in milliseconds.

We are in 2020. It shouldn't be impossible to write two codes that mimic a cam and an eye 99% correctly, instead of making 3D artist fiddle with curves.

2020-05-07, 15:45:20
Reply #271

Fluss

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
We are in 2020. It shouldn't be impossible to write two codes that mimic a cam and an eye 99% correctly, instead of making 3D artist fiddle with curves.

I give you 2hrs, show me :) Just hope you manage to teleport a display capable of human eye dynamic range from 22th century.

2020-05-07, 16:10:43
Reply #272

lolec

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
We are in 2020. It shouldn't be impossible to write two codes that mimic a cam and an eye 99% correctly, instead of making 3D artist fiddle with curves.

DSLR already try to approximate what our eyes see. That should be achievable.

But achieving 99% of what the eye sees is literally impossible with current tech and understanding of the world. We don’t “see” in the same sense a camera does, our brain builds an illusion and we make sense of it in our memory.

I’m curios what reference do you hace of renders or images that in your opinion represent what the eye can see?

Again, DSLR try to achieve that, so I’m not sure what is the difference between the two thibgs you are asking

2020-05-07, 17:10:24
Reply #273

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile

edit:
Instead of rendering like a photographer, what I mean to say is render as the human eye perceives things.




Yes, bud... that's exactly what I suggested at the beginning of this long discussion.
Make only two modes: 1. behavior like a DSLR.   2. Behavior like a human eye (more less).

When we look at our natural surrounding, we rarely see burnt highlights, black shadows, etc... only in very extreme sunlight situations.
That's because our iris and the brain constantly compensate light dynamic changes in milliseconds.

We are in 2020. It shouldn't be impossible to write two codes that mimic a cam and an eye 99% correctly, instead of making 3D artist fiddle with curves.
That's hilarious, I suggested such a thing years ago to Vlado with vray.  I even called it Vrayphysicaleye instead of camera.  I know the name is a little goofy, and everyone laughed at my idea.
« Last Edit: 2020-05-07, 17:25:09 by dfcorona »

2020-05-07, 17:13:38
Reply #274

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
We are in 2020. It shouldn't be impossible to write two codes that mimic a cam and an eye 99% correctly, instead of making 3D artist fiddle with curves.

I give you 2hrs, show me :) Just hope you manage to teleport a display capable of human eye dynamic range from 22th century.


I'm neither a programmer nor do I have a PHD in optical physics. :) Give me 4 hours, please. :)))

2020-05-07, 17:25:38
Reply #275

maru

  • Corona Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 12711
  • Marcin
    • View Profile
If we are to develop a renderer, which simulates what the human eye can see, we should also develop a monitor, which can display such data. Please give us at least 5 hours.
Marcin Miodek | chaos-corona.com
3D Support Team Lead - Corona | contact us

2020-05-07, 17:26:50
Reply #276

vlado

  • Chaos Group Team
  • Active Users
  • ****
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
And sorry to say... but from FStorm I see images from at user levels - and it is immediately visible that the engine has a more photoreal way to calculate light, contrasts and colors.
I'm sure I will regret jumping into this thread, but I feel I have to say this. No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results. They are very nice images for sure and it's fine if people prefer them (even though they always feel a little off and too cold to me) but they are not "photorealistic".

Best regards,
Vlado
(hiding for cover)

2020-05-07, 17:32:49
Reply #277

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
And sorry to say... but from FStorm I see images from at user levels - and it is immediately visible that the engine has a more photoreal way to calculate light, contrasts and colors.
I'm sure I will regret jumping into this thread, but I feel I have to say this. No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results. They are very nice images for sure and it's fine if people prefer them (even though they always feel a little off and too cold to me) but they are not "photorealistic".

Best regards,
Vlado
(hiding for cover)
Go to hell Vlado!  Just kidding, what are you going to regret, we all have great respect for you and take your advice seriously.

2020-05-07, 17:34:00
Reply #278

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
The fastest and closest I see as human eye style of images is when you bring a dng file into photoshop and do the auto camera raw filter.

2020-05-07, 17:36:58
Reply #279

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
I think the trick really of making a render more of what the human eye can see is in the tonemapping/color management.  Cameras blow out highlights and darken shadowed areas, combating those two things I think will get you a lot closer.  I for one always thought (wondered) if each person sees the same anyway even in colors perceived.

2020-05-07, 17:40:59
Reply #280

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results. They are very nice images for sure and it's fine if people prefer them (even though they always feel a little off and too cold to me) but they are not "photorealistic".

They feel coldish to me too to be honest, and slightly 3d-ish on large flat surfaces.
But there's something about the focus on some Fstorm rendering that makes me feel calm. Is that weird? :/

2020-05-07, 17:48:23
Reply #281

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
And sorry to say... but from FStorm I see images from at user levels - and it is immediately visible that the engine has a more photoreal way to calculate light, contrasts and colors.
I'm sure I will regret jumping into this thread, but I feel I have to say this. No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results. They are very nice images for sure and it's fine if people prefer them (even though they always feel a little off and too cold to me) but they are not "photorealistic".

Best regards,
Vlado
(hiding for cover)


I agree with you Vlado. FStorm renders (in average) are also not the super duper 100% realistic render. But this fact does not jump into your eye at first sight. You have to look twice. :)
And yes, the light atmosphere in most FStorm pics is indeed a bit greenish & cold. To my eye, exactly this makes them look camera-like.
During this thread I started pushing the curves in the VFB in this direction... and somehow it looks good / cam-like to me, since one has lees magenta/red tint and the whites start to look more neutral.




2020-05-07, 17:50:35
Reply #282

James Vella

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
I think the trick really of making a render more of what the human eye can see is in the tonemapping/color management.  Cameras blow out highlights and darken shadowed areas, combating those two things I think will get you a lot closer...

This is basically what I mean by the way the human eye perceives things, thats a good way to put it.

No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results...

Are you referring to the render engine or the process of capturing light, color and contrast with a camera?

2020-05-07, 17:55:53
Reply #283

Designerman77

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
No, it's not "photoreal". There is no real-world photographic camera that can produce those results. They are very nice images for sure and it's fine if people prefer them (even though they always feel a little off and too cold to me) but they are not "photorealistic".

They feel coldish to me too to be honest, and slightly 3d-ish on large flat surfaces.
But there's something about the focus on some Fstorm rendering that makes me feel calm. Is that weird? :/




No, its not weird. That color tint has the same effect on me. :))))
Yesterday I thought exactly about this specific point in context of renders: colors and their effect on perception psychology.

From my own renders I drew the conclusion that those feel most fake to my eye, which have a magenta/red tint or are too yellowish. Blueish/greenish tint, especially on the whites, brown tones and blacks somehow look more photo-like to me.

2020-05-07, 18:04:09
Reply #284

dfcorona

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 290
    • View Profile
I did an animation with Fstorm recently, and had to offset the hue to get the cold green tint out of the renders funny enough.