Chaos Corona for 3ds Max > [Max] General Discussion
Tonemapping - Plz Halp
cjwidd:
Bit of a rant - or a cry for help - but I'm either approaching lighting or tone mapping totally incorrectly; it is absolute guesswork every time, and rarely is it 'photorealistic'.
Looking at Juraj's work, Bertrand's work, etc. - there is a consistent look and quality with each project and I'm just not convinced (for now) that they are also, just guessing; I assume they have some sort of method - a procedure. For example, when I worked in a studio, we had a *very* strict method, and it produced a consistent result, but with Corona I feel like I'm guessing once I get to tone mapping.
In Ludvik's, Time to ditch sRGB/Linear as default (?) thread, it is mentioned:
--- Quote from: Ludvik Koutny on 2017-02-19, 17:44:41 ---Right now, we perceive linear sRGB as the default, the start line, and we then work with some parameters to bring that sRGB close to photo-realism. We manually have to twist some knobs in order to take a picture, which by default is not realistic to our eyes, and using some controls, turn it into image that our eyes perceive as photorealistic. So why not just skip this process and have renderer(s) by default output same ranges as cameras do. [...] There's no significant reason why renderer should not work the same way. Not by having a dropdown where you can pick numerous response curves, and one of them is called photorealistic, but instead by having it defaulting to a camera, with an option to switch to a very special mode, which will make your output less realistic, but compose-able in post.
--- End quote ---
This is a very attractive proposition and it speaks to the issue I am referring to. Regardless of whether such an implementation is feasible or not, I'd like to learn how to produce images that are of the quality we expect from the Corona Gallery and I just haven't seen strong tutorials - free or paid - demonstrating such an approach.
Jpjapers:
Its not just tonemapping that makes those guys renders look amazing every time. Its attention to detail at every stage and questioning how something actually looks in reality vs what we imagine it looks like. Lacking some minute details is enough to make your brain subconciously question an images' realism so the answer to the question "How do i make it look like [insert artist here]" is usually "Hard work and practice" when you really break it down. I get what you mean though with regard to the consistency of some people images. I think its maybe to do with everyone having a preference of HDRI for a given look, combined with repeating and refining your preferred process over time.
I dont think you need to worry though. Your renders are always awesome!
maru:
1. "Turn linear sRGB into digital camera product"
--- Quote ---having it defaulting to a camera, with an option to switch to a very special mode, which will make your output less realistic, but compose-able in post.
--- End quote ---
You can get this by rendering your image at the default settings, then enabling LUT and picking one of the 3 Kim Amland's photographic LUTs. They are captured from real life digital cameras.
Then you can optionally reduce the strength of the LUT to ~0,8 (to your own taste) and play with highlight compression and filmic values (again to your own taste, to reduce highlight burn).
2. "I want to produce images like the masters"
--- Quote ---This is a very attractive proposition and it speaks to the issue I am referring to. Regardless of whether such an implementation is feasible or not, I'd like to learn how to produce images that are of the quality we expect from the Corona Gallery and I just haven't seen strong tutorials - free or paid - demonstrating such an approach.
--- End quote ---
I am afraid this is not as easy as just following one or two tutorials. Artists have their own secrets. Some of them definitely use Photoshop or other post tools to adjust images in addition to what is done in the VFB, not only by changing the overall tone mapping/coloring, but also locally, e.g. by making some areas more or less noisy, brighter/darker, more clear/blurry, etc.
cjwidd:
@Jpjapers, thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response, and @Maru thank you for your advice - I really appreciate it :)
I think both of your responses more or less encapsulate the truth of the matter, which, as you say @Jpjapers - it boils down to hard work and practice. I want to be clear, I'm not grasping for a magical solution, I'm not pining for a "make this look good button", but I do imagine there are techniques - like using False Color LUTs, etc. - to help narrow the path toward an image that speaks to the quality of the 'masters'.
I would also say that I have **scoured** the forums for many of the relevant tools that have been shared here (e.g. Dubcats camera LUT dumps, fStorm LUTs, Adanmq false colour LUTs and log space filmic LUTs, specular to IOR cube (for materials - Quixel Bridge does this by default now), Dubcats ACES emulation recommendations, etc.) and gathered many high quality (?) HDRIs, including Jørgen Herland and Peter Guthrie.
I assume then, that if I am working with high quality tools, then the onus is on me to get the most from the tools which are already doing their part to help.
I'll take a look at the resources you linked @Jpjapers, they seem promising - thank you!
Jpjapers:
--- Quote from: cjwidd on 2020-03-11, 20:30:32 ---@Jpjapers, thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed response, and @Maru thank you for your advice - I really appreciate it :)
I think both of your responses more or less encapsulate the truth of the matter, which, as you say @Jpjapers - it boils down to hard work and practice. I want to be clear, I'm not grasping for a magical solution, I'm not pining for a "make this look good button", but I do imagine there are techniques - like using False Color LUTs, etc. - to help narrow the path toward an image that speaks to the quality of the 'masters'.
I would also say that I have **scoured** the forums for many of the relevant tools that have been shared here (e.g. Dubcats camera LUT dumps, fStorm LUTs, Adanmq false colour LUTs and log space filmic LUTs, specular to IOR cube (for materials - Quixel Bridge does this by default now), Dubcats ACES emulation recommendations, etc.) and gathered many high quality (?) HDRIs, including Jørgen Herland and Peter Guthrie.
I assume then, that if I am working with high quality tools, then the onus is on me to get the most from the tools which are already doing their part to help.
I'll take a look at the resources you linked @Jpjapers, they seem promising - thank you!
--- End quote ---
Id still say the biggest thing to always keep in mind is the reality aspect of whatever youre doing. If youre making a lamp light, do some googling and find out the lumens output of a lamp bulb. If you ever have to boost the sun intensity. Something else is wrong. If you ever have a light set to crazy intensity to make it look realistic, something else is wrong. It sort of helps to just keep asking why when you reach those points. It often helps to set everything back to defaults to rebalance your image if you get to a point where youre making a completely unrealistic guess.
But as i say, your renders look great already! Everyone has a style. I certainly have a method when it comes to lighting but the longer you play around with things the more youre likely to develop your own style instead of trying to emulate others. I didnt think you were asking for a magic button but it really does just boil down to understanding the software, its relation to real world values and knowing the physically accurate values and methods that you should be using to achieve realism. Yes CG is a playground and we arent bound by physics. But if youre going for realism, you should adhere to realism and the rules which apply in the real world.
As Da Vinci said "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version