Just saw this.
a good read.
Jump to content
Just saw that too, very interesting.
I pretty much agree apart from lighting har and fur along with the eyeball highlight.
Interesting read - I couldn't agree more. When I light, my general rule of thumb is could I do this with a real light? Same goes with camera animation.
Last years FMX had a really interesting talk from a DOP with Technocrane regarding camera physics and how CG artists tend to fall into the trap of treating the camera as a weightless, invisible object. Will see if there is a link online because he had some really amazing pointers for both lighting and camera movement.
Yes.. on the whole it's better to treat the whole scene as one entity and keep everything as accurate as possible (especially when creating photo realistic renders). There is the odd occasion however when it does save time.
That sounds good Sam, let us know if you manage to dig it out!
Hmmmm I disagree - light linking is very useful, especially if you aren't using a decent renderer (Mental Ray for example - light linking is really helpful for fixing weird parts of the scene that will not light correctly) or if you are creating non photorealistic renders.
Obviously if you want photorealism, then you need to use a decent renderer, and the requirement for light linking is less, although as Mark said, it's the best way to do catchlights on eyes, and also to light hair - it's the same reason that in the 1940s lights were created for that very purpose (admittedly they couldn't prevent the lights in those days from affecting more than the object they were aimed at, but you can bet the DOPs would've done so if they had had the functionality!).
The author of the article obviously is only interested in photorealism - he presumably doesn't have to work on hyperrealistic imagery where lighting might be wrong, but it's what the client wants - in times like those, light linking can be very important. I think it's important to know all the tools so you can use them when you need them - because you're not going to ignore them when the shit hits the fan and you need to get an image finished!
The problem I tend to find is when things move all the light linking goes wrong (cameras, characters). To compensate I used (this is before mentalray was around, yep old'n days) to then have to add more light links and more lights. I could end up with 60-70 ish lights. If you look at the first Toy Story and up to Toy Story 3 they could have up to 200 lights+ because of this problem.
See pic, left is what they call Emperical lighting, old, points, spots with infinitely small sources, light linking etc- right is new physical based lighting, which looks like just 6 lights Back before this if the lighting changed it then took day to do the changes. Fast Forward to Pixars Monsters University..
The guy in this you tube clip is the one who we talked to at FMX.
There are hardly any lights in the scene because Pixar tend not to use Light Linking anymore and use PBR instead. The other thing I find is if a light has correct fallout it does not really need to be light linked as you can "get at that one object". Either that or use light blockers.
If we look at another non photo real film like The Croods from DreamWorks. They are using HDRI as their main base of lighting.
Having said all that I just did a non-real animated character for the local primamry school. I did try link linking. Beyond two lights it just started to look wrong (the feet area). Funnily enough a film from last year had light linking around the feet which made their feet look all floaty as well. So I ended up using light blockers instead.
It will be interesting to see what the new RenderMan will be like when it comes out as it is going to be a lot more like Arnold to try to get the the market share back. And it is also free for non-commercial use!
You all might like looking at this cartoon film done in Arnold..
Edited by MarkW, 23 July 2014 - 07:20 AM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users