Show us your 3Delight renders
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Did you check the quality settings? Maybe they were way too high? Talking about shading rate for both the reflective and the UE2 light. IIRC default was at 8 but you could try 16 or even 32. That would speed up things considerably. You could also try using IBLM and just load the reflective light without UE2. I used that method in one of my pool test scenes and it worked really well IMO.
...been awhile since I worked with UE. All that fussing with sampling to get a clean image was a real pain as I remember.
So what you are saying is just use the reflective light by itself with the Distant light and ILBM I already have in the scene, correct?
__________
Update: Just loaded the Reflective Light set the shading rate to 32 (which apparently is the "base" setting as the number greyed out) and not very encouraging. Barely into the hair at 1h:25m (16% complete). Going to let it run overnight and check the time in the logfile in the morning, but I feel this is one I'm sending back.
The version with a second AoA distant light to fake the reflective bounce took 9m:45s. Would attach that, but it is a .tif file and the forum software doesn't support that format.
__________
Update #2 stopped the process it at 2h:08m as it appears to be taking forever with the hair, only 2 buckets processed (at a bucket size of 8) in nearly 40 min. Going to turn occlusion off for hair and plants and see if that helps. Also set occlusion samples to 64.
Well, that didn't work as I was still looking at a blank render window after 8 min (on the previous attempt I was seeing progress in the render window just before 2 min). cancelled the process and think I'm just going to request a refund tomorrow as this isn't working the way I thought it would.
Converted the "faked" reflective light test to a .png so I could attach it and not deal with ,jpg compression (left side image, the one on the right is the original without the second distant light for comparison).
Oh wow that's painfully slow
. It clearly doesn't like your hardware much. Ya "oldschool lighting" is still handy for many scenes. I used to fake bouncelight with distant lights too, but found a (IMO)nicer way of faking it when I run into trouble trying to render some outdoor animation a while back. Used the AoA distant and ambient, but since the ambient light doesn't have a color slot, I started combining it with the UE2 in ambient mode, inserting the sky dome texture, setting contrast and saturation to max and just adding some intensity so it doesn't wash out the AO. And that way you also get specular light that the UE2 doesn't output. Well not really photoreal LOL but works for animation in many cases;)
One thing I’ve tried is making everything slightly reflective.
It works, but... everything slows down again to UE2/Iray CPU levels.
..yeah but IBLM is still so much faster than UE.and already provides the "Ambient" component through the HDR sphere.
Sad about Reflective Radiance as it really looked like it would be a nice solution. Haven't even bothered with the emissive presets (which most likely use the Uber Area Light). The way things were shaping up, I estimated the time would be something like 8 - 10 hours if only two small buckets processed in 40 min (and there are three characters in the foreground). Even IBLM slows down a tiny bit on the hair but not to "geologic" levels.
It's so much faster because it's not realistic lighting.
...true, but before Iray that's pretty much all we had as 3DL lights are essentially "shaders" and not real physical light. So to get close (like Dreamlight did) such elements need to be "faked" as best as possible. I was quite impressed with LDP and LDP2 when they came out and disappointed that there wasn't an "LDP3" for Daz 4.x (yeah there's the LDP-R but that requires photoshop to do most of what the previous ones did "in render" as well as incorporates functions of the old MoodMaster plugin).
Many of the environmental light systems that came out afterwards (and before Iray) were based on UE and were slow.
Again 3DL in Daz was never meant to produce photo real quality even if the full professional version can. However, I believe it can still get close enough for producing nice high quality images particularly with the different effect that can be used in the render pass which for Iray require post. Just because it doesn't look like exactly like a photograph doesn't mean it's inferior.
Iray in Daz is also similarly throttled compared to the standalone/professional versions.
There are several ways to do bounce effects without UE. It’s still slow because that stuff is slow.
And ... pretty much it is inferior lighting. It might be sufficient for someone’s needs, which is great.
As for ‘meant’, it was meant to render images as well as you could. The fact that reflection and path length and UE exist are signs that 3dl is ‘meant’ to do whatever you can.
I can, and have, rendered fairly realistic images in 3dl, and there are a few elements of 3dl that arguably have advantages that Iray lacks.
(Volume is way easier in 3dl... though incredibly slow. Although I’ve found multi render approaches that work nicely in Iray)
...from my experience with Iray over the last 2+ years, it was interesting, but without the proper hardware there is no way to reach it's full potential (photo quality imagery) without extremely long render times unless you have a fairly robust GPU or expensive dual CPU monster system. Yes there are workarounds like manual scene optimisation, however, I have found it often comes down to diminishing returns time wise to the point I'm just as well off sitting back and dealing with the long render times
3DL lighting is "different", it is no more "inferior" than oil paints are to photography as they are two separate technologies/media. Had Daz not courted Nvidia we'd still be doing everything in 3DL with glacially slow Lux, and the more expensive Octane (though that will be changing soon with the release of Octane 4) as the PBR options.
Having to limp along as I have with CPU rendering in Iray, I just have not been not sold on it. It has become a major source of discouragement due to the heavier impact it has on my old system's meagre resources and workflow. I haven't become involved in this to add more frustration, I did so to relax. Yeah, it would be a different story if I had a 1080 Ti, or Titan, but that just isn't going to be with where GPU prices are today (which likely will remain inflated for some time to come). I have to go with what works best with the system I have and as I have come to realise, 3DL is simply more "resource friendly" than Iray.
This is my two Zlotys on the matter.
..
No renderers give you real physical light. Real physical light happens in the real world only.
Every renderer only uses mathematical models. With various shortcuts and simplifications.
A "shader" is a user-editable piece of code that the renderer interprets. It can host the exact same mathematical model that another renderer may have compiled in.
A "shader" may or may not be slower to execute than the same model precompiled. This depends on the quality of the algorithms and optimisations in a particular renderer.
We need some sort of a community course in CG basics.
This is the look that every teenager who is forced to spend time with their family has on their face lol. And yes, I am wayyyy behind.
Great atmosphere with this.
@IceDragonArt
Thank you so much for your kind comments:) And yes I recall having that expression myself, many MANY years ago
...true, just using the term to differentiate between a "physically based" and biased engine.
I couldn't resist this set, it's amazing:) First render, now off to explore every corner of it...
https://www.daz3d.com/old-japanese-town-edo-vol5
The alley:
...very nice.
And the interesting thing is: "unbiased" and "physically based" are unrelated characteristics.
The moment you, say, prune hi-energy specular rays to get rid of fireflies - it's a bias. So if you are not sampling caustics in unidirectional pathtracers like Arnold (which is one of those examples most people think of as "unbiased"), you introduce a bias.
"Word of god" about Iray: it's not strictly "unbiased" either. http://blog.irayrender.com/post/142742319456/is-iray-an-unbiased-renderer-can-it-be-used-to
You can compute "physically based" light transport with a bias (and 9 times out of 10, this is what everyone does).
And even if you compute light transport consisting of indirect diffuse and indirect specular (aka glossy reflection) but are not using realistic reflectances - you basically leave the "physically based" scenario.
..ah not the technician/programmer I used to be, just a simple artist, these days.
Here is another experiment with mood lighting and test of the new Wicked Queen Bundle I got from the bi-weekly Daz Freebies.
Not sure what is going on with her cheek I think I need some help with that!!
Titled: Mary The Mad Queen
That cheek thing is apparently something that is built-in to the HD head morph for the character, Saph, I assume deliberately. If you use the other regular head morph option, it does not occur.
Nice composition (and title
)! Cheeks look kinda cool;)
IBLM render:
Thanks SixDs I seen that when I went back and looked at the icons, I was hoping there might have been a fix for it but it is deliberatly there!
What a great render Sven those IBLM render are turning out so kewl!
...it is a great product.
Glad you like it:) Yes IBLM is very nice, but it still has some issues, even after the upgrade. This render wouldn't work with IBLM, got all kinds of artefacts using the same set and light settings, all I did was turn the camera around and load the car with that dude. Had to try and recreate the light using the AoA lights, which turned out to be a tough one. Oh and worked on the ground material, think it looks better now;)
Here is the IBLM render, which IMO looks much better, appart from the artefacts. I tried tweaking every parameter but they wouldn't go away.
@Mustakettu85
Do you have any idea why this is happening? It seems to me it's related to normals/light angle, as changing direction of light and/or removing normal maps sometimes fixes the problem. After the upgrade it's much better, but I'm still having problems, ocasionally.
...nice scene, and yes the ground looks much better in the latter two.
I like the overall lighting better in the IBLM scene.
Are you using Progressive or Bucket mode?