Re: Ideas for star fields?
On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] j.ponthi...@nasa.gov wrote: If you are using the high res map, the jpeg file TychoSkymapII.t5_16384x08192.jpg will work just as well as the tiff without the file size overhead. Go to the image file’s ADJUST tab and set the Exposure to something like 2.0. You’ll be absolutely amazed at what is lurking in the lower range of the image. J This should work equally as well whether you use the Environment shader that Matt suggested or a sphere object. If you are using a sphere object though you should set the material to a constant shader for best results. I find an exposure of about ~1 to ~1.5 lets these details show up without making the Milky Way disc too obvious. Thanks ill try this! I was using the gamma they suggest of 1.8, within SI. It seems to look fairly realistic, but without many stars showing. I didn't think of changing the exposure (except on the HDR version I made). You’ll also want to avoid looking at either of the poles. The projection they used does not appear to compensate real well with a typical spherical UV projection I do need to look at the poles, I need a full 360 spatial view, unrestricted. I thought I would have to use Flexify on it, but so far it looks good, on the south pole, though I have to check it more... From a personal perspective, to see the universe in this way and with this level of clarity is really amazing. Our sun is just one of those dots. Yes, isn't it? And the vastness of space...so much space/time between all those stars as well. and we are circling only one of them on our tiny little earth... I find when you zoom into the image, more and more stars appear, and you can see the color shifts present. I would like to see more of them in the render however, so thank you for the exposure advice. Gamma adj in SI reduces the sense of depth too much, the whitish haze there doesn't read well. Nancy -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:17 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Ideas for star fields? I'm rendering with Redshift. What I've been experimenting with is to take the star field map I'm using for the background, whether Hubble or now Joey Ponthieux's wonderful suggestion of the NASA star field image. It seems to wrap nicely to a sphere, not much shows up in the render, but it's a good base to work with.
Re: Ideas for star fields?
Sounds great but I don't have Nuke... Just After Effects with trapcode particular. May be something useful here, but the problem with post comp is that I need to create lights for the scene that correspond to the starlight (as least somewhat). Resulting in a subtle GI lighting from space... Might still work, but I'd probably have to be far more advanced with all this than I am... Or maybe I'm just over thinking it. Thanks! On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Sylvain Lebeau s...@shedmtl.com wrote: Maybe take a look at StarPro plug in for Nuke? http://www.maasdigital.com/starpro/ I never tried it, but at 227$ it's worth to check and you still keep the control in comp. Look at the first video for a little tut on it... hope it helps sly Sylvain Lebeau // SHED V-P/Visual effects supervisor 1410, RUE STANLEY, 11E ÉTAGE MONTRÉAL (QUÉBEC) H3A 1P8 T 514 849-1555 F 514 849-5025 WWW.SHEDMTL.COM http://WWW.SHEDMTL.COM am.png VFX Curriculum 03: Compositing Basics mail to: s...@shedmtl.com On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Hello, I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-res Hubble images. So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a compositing situation. Soany ideas? Thanks, Nancy
Re: Ideas for star fields?
Good point, if I use expressions to correct the rotation problems re the environment map and any SI world null rotation parameters... They have to be connected in a strange manner, at least as of 2014. Don't imagine they've fixed that... Thanks, Nancy On Jun 24, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote: If you're just going to create a sphere with specks on it, why don't you use an environment shader? That does the same work without having to create a sphere, deal with camera rigs, or mess up your ray depth computations in the render. Matt -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:25 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields? Oh and one other thing. You may find that constraining the star field sphere position directly to your camera and forcing the sphere orientation to remain in sync with the scene will produce the best results. Render the stars out as a pass and comp everything over them as the base image. By doing this the stars will always maintain an exact distance from the camera and since stars are such an incredible distance from us in space the illusion is remarkably similar. It will also make the appearance of the stars much more predictable as you can set them for what you want and you no longer have to worry about that appearance changing other than camera orientation. -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage- boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC- E1A)[LITES] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:13 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: Ideas for star fields? The problem is that you are using Hubble images. Hubble images are high res and beautiful but often are only representative of a single focal point in space. What you want is a star map that is a cylindrical projection suited for your sphere. You will find the maps you need at this link. In particular the high res Tycho maps are probably what you want. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00/a003500/a003572/ When you map these onto your sphere you will notice that the center of your sphere of the focal point of a disc or ring of stars. You'll see the ring form on the inner side of the sphere. There were three maps historically, Tycho, Hipparcos, and Yale. The following links contain them but these do not look like the highest res versions. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/tycho8.html http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/hipp8.html http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/assets/yale8.html Each was created at different resolutions and star counts. One is synthetic I think, and that I believe is the Yale map based upon the Tycho catalog. The map is of higher contrast and may lack a lot of the intermediate or diminished stars so it may be useful in some circumstances. You'll have to figure out what the basic appearance is that you are looking for and a combination of the maps may be what you want. As you probably have already discovered, you won't be able to let your camera get too close to the texture surface as the stars will become abnormally large and the illusion will be lost. Its best if you scale the sphere as large as you can and keep the surface as far from the camera as possible to reach the effect you want. If you want a moving starfield, the best way to achieve that is generate a massive field of small triangles set to constant white. The distance apart, size, and randomness will have to be worked out. You can do this as particles as well, but if the particles are set to pixel height you'll lose the sense of perspective and distance as you fly through them. -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage- boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:43 PM To: Softimage Listserve Subject: Ideas for star fields? Hello, I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere
Re: Ideas for star fields?
Thank you Jason for this awesome texturing advice. I've done a lot in photoshop with tiles and spherical texture maps, so this is my territory. Some of these procedures i'll have to read over a few times to really get completely, so I hope you don't mind if I need to ask a couple questions about them at some point. Thanks! Nancy On Jun 24, 2014, at 2:17 AM, Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com wrote: In my experience, a textured sphere can work pretty good, You can tile an image (3-4 times on a sphere) with a tilable base star texture (as uniform as possible) large enough to hold enough subtle variations without perceiving patterns (perhaps 1.5-3x the size of your final render res), If you are using Photoshop, from a say 1or2k rez. small-star starfield pic, (to make a 2-3k final pic) you can do a 'filter-offset' by any odd amount, and then breakup the seams to make it tilable -- super-easy specially for stars, you can use a speckly brush clone stamp with high opacity (so no opacity gradient falloffs) and a low brush step, (so 1 stamp at every ~20 pixels on strokes for very random cloning) So you can make a relatively 'mostly uniform ' star map density as a base BG, ( with many-many dim (almost subpixel) stars, a a number of mediums, and really just a couple of bright ones, all with a bit of cloudy variations ) if there arent enough dimer ones, or to add density or (uniformize?), you can use a big clone stamp with that speckle-y brush, but in additive (linear dodge) mode at varying opacity also with that now-tilable pic, you can scale it down 50% tile it 4 times in half opacity (linear dodge) for those many faint BG stars Then, with those hubble pics, you can isolate interesting areas, make the rest transparent, and in 3d, add grids in key spots to add localized cloudy nebula patterns and variations depending on what you're after (with RGB intensity as opacity) If you really need 360 (up down) with a spherical projection, you'll probably want to mix-in a copy of that starfield texture for any stretching at the poles of the sphere. I used a very speckle-y gradient (made of fat noise) with a white to black radial fat noise gradient in the center as an alpha for the same stars texture, to project vertically top down (x-z) You can also blend the star textures somewhat more than 1 in 3d so that some stars can bleed a bit with perhaps an additive blurred version of just those hot pixels. That may be enough on it's own, but if you are moving around (at light speed?) you can also add 3D stars, Adams tips seems like an excellent approach to that :) .. good luck! :) Jason On 06/23/14 17:50, Adam Sale wrote: Do you need nebulae, etc? If its just stars, what about using a static point cloud with spherical / displaced randomized spheres as shape. Randomize color and transparency per point? This would give you the 3d field you are looking for, then perhaps some fluids to do neb clouds, simulated particles for comets, meteors etc.. Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills together to make a bg cyclo to pull the 3d elements together? Adam On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Hello, I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-res Hubble images. So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a compositing situation. Soany ideas? Thanks, Nancy
Re: Ideas for star fields?
On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com wrote: Plus mistery soft light from a galaxies that always happens to be somewhere around so that there may be light, with dust in space so we can see lazers :) That's what I'm counting on! That Mystery soft light. Since what I'm doing can have a bit of 'artistic license' ;-)... Though I am making it generally correspond to the starfield light. After all, one can see in old paintings the 'heavenly light' thing... Where you don't really question where it comes from too much if it works in the painting... (ok so I'm a painter first after all... ;-)) Nancy
Ideas for star fields?
Hello, I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-res Hubble images. So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a compositing situation. Soany ideas? Thanks, Nancy
Re: Ideas for star fields?
Thanks Adam, this is a great idea, and something I'm not used to doing, so I will have to learn more. Would it be best to do this with ice? Or just basic particles? As for fluidsam I missing somethingdo we have fluids in Softimage these days...? Nebula clouds would be perfect, as I need some interest, and something to account for more light happening in the scene. Basically, my scene is floating about in space... Anything you can point me to to learn more about these processes? Even just topic keywords to explore would help. Thanks very much! Nancy On Jun 23, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Adam Sale adamfs...@gmail.com wrote: Do you need nebulae, etc? If its just stars, what about using a static point cloud with spherical / displaced randomized spheres as shape. Randomize color and transparency per point? This would give you the 3d field you are looking for, then perhaps some fluids to do neb clouds, simulated particles for comets, meteors etc.. Perhaps use the hubble images or comp some stills together to make a bg cyclo to pull the 3d elements together? Adam On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Hello, I'm needing a star field kind of background for a scene, and looking for ideas to create it. I have been using Hubble images wrapped around a sphere, around the scene, but I'm finding it doesn't read well, even with very high-res Hubble images. So, I'm wondering about other ways to create star fields. Has to be 360 degrees, seamlessly -- and I don't have the capability to deal with that in a compositing situation. Soany ideas? Thanks, Nancy
Re: Rendering alternative to mental ray needed..
Thank you all so much for this information about Redshift! I'm planning on testing it out today, it looks like a very good tool for me. And I love the FPrime-like preview with gradual refinement. I really got hooked on that feedback some years ago. Miss it. One question. I have a quadro fx 3800 in a 3DBoxx machine a few years oldwhich I see qualifies for Redshift, but needs replacing anyway, as it just won't cut it for Mari. Softimage works great with it, no complaining with the same models and hi-res textures visble as i use in Mari...but what can you do, Mari is elitist that way ;-) I also have an older Boxx with an older quadro, but probably won't bother using it for a render farm, as it's not as powerful, and that would involve more expense. I will need to render quite a few frames of animation for my current mega (for me) video project. Overnights and days spent on my day job (painting) rendering with the newer Boxx, that's the plan. What would everyone suggest as a video card replacement, not too pricey but substantially better than what I have? Yes I do have to check with Boxx or find out what will fit in there with my current motherboard, but, just off the cuff suggestions. There's always a point where the cost/benefit ratio levels off... And I'm thinking not to go with a quadro this time, another GeForce might do just as well with more power for the price? If so , what's a good major step up, works well with Mari and Redshift, priced for the little guy... Thanks! Nancy On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Tim Crowson tim.crow...@magneticdreams.com wrote: Sebastion, I think they're comparing it with Mental Ray simply because of its degree of integration within Softimage, not because of its results. And as Andreas said, MR really does have great shaders. The Redshift Architectural material was originally derived from the MR version, for example, but has since evolved. There are plans to replace the RS_Arch shader entirely with a new uber-material that would include SSS as well (I've been wanting to blend SSS and Refraction in the same shader for a while now...). Beyond the integration and shader support though, Redshift is nothing like Mental Ray at all. If you're interested in what kinds of shading nodes Redshift offers (or which XSI ones it supports), you can see that in the public docs here, under the 'Shaders' section. As for the contrast between the Octane workflow and the RS workflow... surely it's night and day. Redshift is very tightly integrated into XSI, much like SITOA is. It's a really smooth experience. Unless they've changed some things recently with Octane, the raw workflow for using Octane is not nearly as fluid. In regards to Nancy's original question... it's amazing how many proponents of Redshift have appeared in the last few months. Having used all the renderers mentioned here, I'd also suggest Redshift, since Arnold is just overkill for the kind of work you do, Nancy (judging strictly by what I can gather, of course). -Tim On 3/23/2014 12:56 AM, Sebastien Sterling wrote: What is the workflow like vs Octane ? has anyone tested ? I mean i hear people comparing Redshift to Mentalray in matters of handling, personally i'm not a fan of MR interaction, but that might just be bias on account of the slowness, and the all around instability, and the crashing and the artefacts... Are the nodes anything different to what you would usually get ? On 23 March 2014 05:00, phil harbath phil.harb...@jamination.com wrote: I don’t know much about mac pros, is that a pci-e 2 slot (or less?), so even though you are putting pci-e 3 cards in an older slot you are still getting that kind result? I have an computer about that age, if that works, that would be a no brainer. From: Ed Manning Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 12:05 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Rendering alternative to mental ray needed.. On the economic advantages of redshift or other gpu renderers. My current workstations are Mac Pro 3.1s which are left over from the company I shut down in 2009 (bootcamped into Windows). Essentially worthless from a CPU standpoint. Putting a single $1000 titan gpu into one of them makes it more efficient at rendering than any modern 16-core $8,000 workstation running any CPU ray tracer. Putting 2 titans in them is like having my old 162-core blade server renderfarm without the $5000/month electric bill. Not to mention all the IT overhead and license costs. I have never seen a single piece of software (in concert with the astonishing graphics hardware that is now so cheap and still getting cheaper) have such a cost-reducing impact. Plus they are fanatically hard workers and great communicators. --
Re: Demise of SI and what it means for fine arts work
These are great points Peter and Andres. Andres, I remember being in on the very first Truespace release... I loved the rendering engine, but couldn't stand the modeling. Interesting that you prefer it for modeling! I had many conversations with their tech support on why don't you have this or that simple modeling tool...but they insisted on their methodology, which to me was imprecise, though I can see how someone who preferred to model in another way would find it interesting. Did they change the modeling tools over the years? (I think I bailed at Truespace 3). I got well into Imagine around that time, and found it great for modeling... Even did a couple commercial projects with it if you can imagine that. A couple other software carcasses I don't remember the names of ;-).then settled on Lightwave for some time. Loved the modeling tools there, and the rendering, the process and the results...with some brilliant pluginsfrankly I still miss Lightwave there, it was easier to achieve my aesthetic with it. It's the (lack of) animation that broke Lightwave for me, and that dual modeling/rendering application situation. XSI was an absolute dream come true there. The most logical and intuitive piece of software I've ever used. With animation systems that are so much easier to work with and visualize. First time I've ever been able to do any successful rigging of a realistic human model was with XSI. And it's great for modeling too, once you get the hang of it. You are all so right, I'm sure SI as is will continue to provide the tools I need for a very long time. As long as the help files remain online...? And if they don't break the final release so it is unusable. And if it is still available to install on future computers and windows platforms. That's the scary part, really. I'm even kind of hesitant to mention these things because I'm afraid AD is listening and might see a way to break us of the SI habit here... Also, I've never really been able to get fully the results I want out of mental ray. I've had to put a lot of hours into studying it and experimenting, and still can't get a lot of the rendering effects I got with Lightwave. I loved their system of gradation effects you could put on anything, but somehow it doesn't translate to mental ray's system. Working with mental ray seems kind of like wrestling with an invisible bear sometimes... I've heard there is a passionate C4D community, and it is often touted as a tool for artists, and easy to use. But when I've looked at it, it seems limited compared with SI. Does anyone know the state of it now, has it improved in the area of animation and effects? How does it compare with SI? I just keep remembering FPrime in Lightwave, and how great an integrated renderer that was to use... Fast for GI effects too, which i sorely need. And KRay was coming along and looking good too. If only I could get the best of both worlds there...Lightwave rendering plugins with SI everything else... Nancy Jacobs http://www.childofillusion.net/ On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Andres Stephens drais...@outlook.com wrote: I agree with you Tenshi and Peter. I still use Truespace for my modelling and previz 5 years after Microsoft shut it down. Yes it still only uses viewport tech based on directX 9, yes it has none of the latest bells and whistles these days ... But it's the community, very small as is (you could count them on your hands and feet) that helps me keep it alive as my artistic tool of choice (and it still wowzers clients as I quickly slap together and modify on demand previz and models in a decent viewport today) . There still are some heros developing it and even doing unofficial updates, or compiling uncontinued plugins and tutorials together and keeping then shared. Even resurrecting old websites (www.Caligari.us) . And this last release of Truespace from 2009 was only beta. (though luckily they left it for free in its dying breaths) I agree with you both, and when I am able to purchase a right to softimage 2015, I can still see years of shelf life for such a professional and capable product like si, with so much room to expand on concepts I don't even know (ICE) that no matter how advanced it's competion will become, it still can be a competitive and perfect tool of choice for individuals or small studios - for years and years to come. And I hope the community, even after shifting software, will not drift apart and like TS, keep up the development how they can, the art, the products, and in the right time master other tools and share... But there will always be that first love on the side. I guess the Truespace forum www.united3dartists.com/forum had a fitting title when it was created right after the demise of its beloved software.. Stay United, stay a true 3d artist, love your software dead or alive, and keep mastering your skills with any
Rendering alternative to mental ray needed..
Hello, I was beginning to ponder, in another thread, some rendering issues in SI. I've never really liked mental ray, tried to, spent a long time studying it, and could never get the kind of aesthetic I was able to achieve in Lightwave, with the Steve Worley plugin FPrime, or the newer Kray, which was beginning a promising development about when I left. Seems to have taken off now, too. I ported several projects over from Lightwave to XSI some years ago, and tried to reproduce the very nice rendering results I got in Lightwave. Totally different system of course. I figured it was one good approach to learning mental ray. Well, I couldn't get anywhere close, and it was a struggle, and I never really got acceptable results. Every other aspect of the projects went so much better, though, in XSI. And there was animation in XSI I couldn't even begin to do in Lightwave. I need fast GI effects, that's integral to what I do. A lot of interior architectural-like surfaces. Not necessarily total realism, just an aesthetic -- I need to really be able to get in there and tweak things and make them work. I use a lot of HDR lighting, I know how to hand tweak it in photoshop, or create it from scratch, and I like to use that to control my light and color. I've used FG quite a bit, and am not always happy how it translates things. GI is way too slow in my scenes. FPrime and Kray had a way of handling these GI lighting effects that was very efficient, and tweakable. That's the one thing from Lightwave that I REALLY miss. Anything comparable for Softimage? I remember I also could get some reflectivity and ray tracing in Lightwave at a fraction of the rendering time mental ray takes. I can't use it at all in mental ray, with GI (including FG) except on a single object basis. Not for animation on many frames, too costly. But I do like the nodal texturing system built into SI. Anyway, considering these factors, is there any rendering solution for SI that anyone can recommend that will give me what I'm looking for? That isn't too expensive... Thanks, Nancy Jacobs http://www.childofillusion.net/
Demise of SI and what it means for fine arts work
When I bought XSI years ago, I compared it with Maya, and the 3d software packages i had been using since the dawn of the phenomenon, and made my decision. I never looked back. I have been extremely happy with XSI -- the workflow, the interface, everything was geared toward ease of use and learning, and visualization of a project from beginning to end. It has been the one piece of software that I find myself saying, every time I use it, what a fantastic piece of software! A joy to learn and use. And I've barely delved into ICE. When Autodesk purchased XSI, I was crushed. People speak of AD acquiring XSI to use its technology, and Maurice Patel has stated, We also acquire tech, redesign and re-engineer it, even rewrite it entirely, to fit into our products and workflows and yes, if it is more efficient to do so, we just integrate it. So that is obviously one reason for them to acquire XSIright after ICE was introduced. But what I thought then, and sadly seems to be coming true... Is that AD acquired XSI in order to acquire and 'integrate' XSI's USER BASE. What better way for a company to dominate the user base of a software genre than to acquire software products in that genre, kill them, and then offer the stunned user base a cost-efficient (in the short term) entree into their preferred product. Plus they get to cannibalize the dead software and use it to pump up their 'chosen one'. But we are not seeing that latter tech application effect so much as we are seeing the hijacking of the user base of Softimage. And, as so many have pointed out, bringing Maya into a state where SI users will find their workflow and features emulated is only a vague promise for future application. Not likely to be realized, considering the track record of Autodesk. Does this remind anyone of the infamous corporate takeover mentality...? Applied to software, of course. Same principle. Only here, it is the user base which is the prize, the economic draw of an expanded user base over the years. Especially as Maya, and the expensive plugins and expansions needed to do comparable work that XSI does out of the box... is significantly more expensive than XSI. I am a one-person fine artist, primarily a painter, using SI as a tool for video installation work. This is a grey area of use, not completely non-commercial, as art shows have some commerce involved, still the return on investment in the area of 3D work is always likely to be a loss. Still, I reluctantly went for the SI maintenance agreement with AD when it bought XSI, stretching my budget as far as it will go. Maya is not an artist tool like SI is, and not agreeable to a small artist's budget. Very few options remain, in that regard. I left Lightwave because of its lack of non-linear workflow, and cumbersome animation. XSI was light years ahead in these areas. I made my choice, but now it seems that people like me are being squeezed out of any chance of developing our interests and contributions to an alternate aspect of 3D work. I very much admire the work of all of you who work in the industry, and the truly amazing things you do with SI, or any software. Incredible, what you accomplish. (And i often find myself wishing i had the great teams you have to be able to accomplish more of what I envision.) But there has to be a place for small artists who choose to use 3D software for other purposes, and take it in a somewhat different direction. We may not be a large user base which will be economically significant to a company like Autodesk, but this (fine arts) aspect of 3D work needs to be able to exist. And that is becoming increasingly doubtful, with the big sharks gobbling up our accessible software package and leaving us behind with little chance to develop our work. Nancy Jacobs http://www.childofillusion.net/ On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Thanks Maurice, So the information I have today is - most of my work is done with Softimage and there is 0% chance it will be continued. Autodesk has a 99% failure rate internally with creating innovative products. (your words) Autodesk wants me to move to Maya, an old, outdated package that cannot do what I need now, requires significant work (scripts, plugins, etc.) to make usable, is not conducive to small shops or freelancers, and there is no promise that it will ever be able to do what Softimage can do right now. Making that move not only moves me back to the junior level, but reduces my pay, lowers the quality of my work, and significantly hampers my ability to compete. Bifrost is being developed at a company with a 99% failure rate with creating innovative products. Bifrost is not an ICE replacement and may never be one. And, apparently in this industry you should not have all your eggs in one basket. Unfortunately Autodesk bought the goose laying the golden eggs
Re: Environment sphere issues
I have an old copy of HDR shop v1 on my computer, I'm sure it's the same as your linkthe one you linked to, my Norton antivirus, horrified, deleted immediately! ;) I do remember using this in ancient times, must'vee been when image files were smaller, but this one crashed it. And I do need a high res image because this is the background for my project. My HDR lighting image can live with a little polar distortion, and of course it's much smaller. Which brings me to another question -- doesn't all that dynamic range conversion, internally to HDR shop, degrade or change the low dynamic range image? Moot of course if it crashes, but it does have the conversion I need. Dang it. I can't find anything else that does. Thanks, Nancy On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: perhaps you missed one of my earlier postings... Here is a free download (pc application) of a tool (HDRshop version 1) that can convert between the different environment map formats. http://ict.debevec.org/~debevec/HDRShop/download/ here is documentation for all versions. http://gl.ict.usc.edu/HDRShop/documentation/HDRShop_v3_man.pdf Only version 1 is free, but that is all you need for format conversion. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Thanks to both Nicholas and Stephen again, that explains a lot more and sounds like a great idea So you can only use this Pano2VR for the transform back and forth? I visited their website -- they have a watermark on the free version. Apparently it costs $93 -- that's pretty steep for my uses, considering I don't need all their other functionality. Doesn't photoshop or some other tool do this conversion? I just signed on to Adobe Creative Cloud...they ought to have something in all that software that would do this, you'd think? On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: I have use both sphere and cross (or cube) mapping for reflections. Both work fine, and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the specific situation. The fact that an environment is a cube is not an issue. It is simply a different way to map the environment. The fact that it is a cube is not apparent in the resulting rendered image. I understand your concern, but it looks just fine. It is just easier to paint out the polar pinches in this format. Nicholas is correct in that you can just turn the change the format of the environment map and you loose nothing. make both a equirectangular and cube format environment map and choose what works best for you. I think you will see there is no difference, except when painting out the pole pinches. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Thanks, Stephen and Nicholas for the information on cubical projection. Frankly, I'm partial to spheres... I've always found them better as background environments -- cubes never seem right, the edges tend to be apparent. especially because this is a scene in a 360 space and i don't want to have to avoid the camera looking at the edges of the cube. But I also don't want to have to avoid the poles of a sphere. But I've never tried the cubical projection in Softimage, is it better somehow? You're right, Nicholas, it would be easier to paint out the distortion in PS. But I don't want to do all that work on creating a cubical projection and have it not read well in the render. Have you used it effectively when you need 360 degree correctness? Thanks! On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: Exactly. Then use the cross version (Pano2VR creates a horizontal cross) setting Softimage's environmental mapping to horizontal cross. Is this not working for you, now? On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Breslow n...@nicholasbreslow.com wrote: The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out the nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of the distortion. You can use Pano2vr http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php for the conversion. After convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar to the Polar method mentioned before. Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would share this. Nicholas Breslow From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment for a seamless space experience. Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess
Re: Environment sphere issues
Nick, I checked this out and loaded the actions into PS, but it only does equirectangular to angular fisheye and back. And lots of cube to cross combinations. But nothing that would get you from a panorama to a cross. Unless I missed something? Thanks, Nancy On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Nicholas Breslow n...@nicholasbreslow.com wrote: Hi Nancy, Check out Andrew Hazelden’s Blog here: http://www.andrewhazelden.com/blog/2012/11/domemaster-photoshop-actions-pack/ The Domemaster Photoshop Actions Pack should do what you need. His site is interesting – worth a look through. PS – Disclaimer: I’ve only used Pano2VR as a license was purchased for me but the actions ~should~ work nicely. Let me know if they don’t. -Nick From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:17 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues Thanks to both Nicholas and Stephen again, that explains a lot more and sounds like a great idea So you can only use this Pano2VR for the transform back and forth? I visited their website -- they have a watermark on the free version. Apparently it costs $93 -- that's pretty steep for my uses, considering I don't need all their other functionality. Doesn't photoshop or some other tool do this conversion? I just signed on to Adobe Creative Cloud...they ought to have something in all that software that would do this, you'd think? On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: I have use both sphere and cross (or cube) mapping for reflections. Both work fine, and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the specific situation. The fact that an environment is a cube is not an issue. It is simply a different way to map the environment. The fact that it is a cube is not apparent in the resulting rendered image. I understand your concern, but it looks just fine. It is just easier to paint out the polar pinches in this format. Nicholas is correct in that you can just turn the change the format of the environment map and you loose nothing. make both a equirectangular and cube format environment map and choose what works best for you. I think you will see there is no difference, except when painting out the pole pinches. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Thanks, Stephen and Nicholas for the information on cubical projection. Frankly, I'm partial to spheres... I've always found them better as background environments -- cubes never seem right, the edges tend to be apparent. especially because this is a scene in a 360 space and i don't want to have to avoid the camera looking at the edges of the cube. But I also don't want to have to avoid the poles of a sphere. But I've never tried the cubical projection in Softimage, is it better somehow? You're right, Nicholas, it would be easier to paint out the distortion in PS. But I don't want to do all that work on creating a cubical projection and have it not read well in the render. Have you used it effectively when you need 360 degree correctness? Thanks! On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: Exactly. Then use the cross version (Pano2VR creates a horizontal cross) setting Softimage's environmental mapping to horizontal cross. Is this not working for you, now? On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Breslow n...@nicholasbreslow.com wrote: The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out the nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of the distortion. You can use Pano2vr http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php for the conversion. After convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar to the Polar method mentioned before. Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would share this. Nicholas Breslow From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment for a seamless space experience. Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill have to drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That plugin you linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe ill find a use for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your images and not mine. Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening visually near the bottom and top of the image
Re: something to cheer you guys up a bit :)
You guys just crack me up...%^D On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Paul Doyle technove...@gmail.com wrote: this is why we cant have nice things. On 1 August 2013 17:12, Alan Fregtman alan.fregt...@gmail.com wrote: All right stop. Fabricate and listen! Splice is back with a brand new integration Something grabs a hold of me tightly Flow like a harpoon daily and nightly Will it ever stop? Yo, I don't know Turn off the lights, and I'll show To the extreme I rock an app like a vandal Light up Stage and wax a chump like a candle Dance Bum rush the speaker that booms I'm killin' your brain like a poisonous mushroom Steadily, as I code a dope node Anything less than the best doesn't bode Love it or leave it You better gain way You better hit bull's eye The kid don't play If there was a problem Yo, I'll solve it Check out the hook while this TD resolves it. Splice splice baby... ...Splice, splice, baby... ツ On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com wrote: Collaborate, Fabric8, and listen? Eric Thivierge === Character TD / RnD Hybride Technologies On August-01-13 4:25:44 PM, Paul Doyle wrote: just stop. On 1 August 2013 16:08, Eric Thivierge ethivie...@hybride.com mailto:ethivie...@hybride.com wrote: Fabric8? Eric Thivierge === Character TD / RnD Hybride Technologies On August-01-13 4:04:07 PM, Paul Doyle wrote: Fabricate is not going to be a thing :)
Re: Environment sphere issues
Yes, me too, same specs. But this image is 9k on the long side (not HdRI though) and I think HDR shop finally met its match with this one. BUT I found this handy plugin for photoshop, it's even 64 bit. Flexibly 2 by Flaming Pear. Very nifty thing, it will output just 'zenith and nadir' files for an equirectangular image, so you can make distortion corrections, and then it pulls the corrected file back in to an equirectangular state, does this all in the correct size for the original image, so you don't have to figure THAT one out, ready to composites with original image. It worked surprisingly well with just my bleary-eyed experimenting in the wee hours. I woke up to a very renderable equirectangular sphere map. Yay. At $50, and all the projections it does (Though a lot of them are just amusing, for printing out and making constructions it seems), this plugin is worth a purchase. BTW, the link you sent seems like the old, old link from dbevec for HDR shop. Maybe Norton destroyed it because it was too old, and therefore suspect (like some of us ;-)) It didn't report that it found a specific virus. On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: I'm running HDRshop ver 1.0 on WIndows 7 64 bit with no issues. I don't see any degrading and I've used it with some 4K HDR files with no issues at all. No virus warnings, either. I'm using Panda Cloud for antivirus. Maybe I should do a virus scan, as I just downloaded it to test the link. On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: I have an old copy of HDR shop v1 on my computer, I'm sure it's the same as your linkthe one you linked to, my Norton antivirus, horrified, deleted immediately! ;) I do remember using this in ancient times, must'vee been when image files were smaller, but this one crashed it. And I do need a high res image because this is the background for my project. My HDR lighting image can live with a little polar distortion, and of course it's much smaller. Which brings me to another question -- doesn't all that dynamic range conversion, internally to HDR shop, degrade or change the low dynamic range image? Moot of course if it crashes, but it does have the conversion I need. Dang it. I can't find anything else that does. Thanks, Nancy On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: perhaps you missed one of my earlier postings... Here is a free download (pc application) of a tool (HDRshop version 1) that can convert between the different environment map formats. http://ict.debevec.org/~debevec/HDRShop/download/ here is documentation for all versions. http://gl.ict.usc.edu/HDRShop/documentation/HDRShop_v3_man.pdf Only version 1 is free, but that is all you need for format conversion. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Thanks to both Nicholas and Stephen again, that explains a lot more and sounds like a great idea So you can only use this Pano2VR for the transform back and forth? I visited their website -- they have a watermark on the free version. Apparently it costs $93 -- that's pretty steep for my uses, considering I don't need all their other functionality. Doesn't photoshop or some other tool do this conversion? I just signed on to Adobe Creative Cloud...they ought to have something in all that software that would do this, you'd think? On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: I have use both sphere and cross (or cube) mapping for reflections. Both work fine, and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the specific situation. The fact that an environment is a cube is not an issue. It is simply a different way to map the environment. The fact that it is a cube is not apparent in the resulting rendered image. I understand your concern, but it looks just fine. It is just easier to paint out the polar pinches in this format. Nicholas is correct in that you can just turn the change the format of the environment map and you loose nothing. make both a equirectangular and cube format environment map and choose what works best for you. I think you will see there is no difference, except when painting out the pole pinches. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Thanks, Stephen and Nicholas for the information on cubical projection. Frankly, I'm partial to spheres... I've always found them better as background environments -- cubes never seem right, the edges tend to be apparent. especially because this is a scene in a 360 space and i don't want to have to avoid the camera looking at the edges of the cube. But I also don't want to have to avoid the poles of a sphere. But I've never tried the cubical projection in Softimage, is it better somehow? You're right, Nicholas, it would be easier to paint out the distortion in PS
Re: Environment alignment mapping question
Yeah, I tested out the 'transformation' rotations in the ppg for the environment node. I went with what soft changes it to when I put in the correct rotations (my env. sphere rotation). I checked it reflected on a test object, against the result when ray traced (which reflects my env. sphere). The reflection is in a different position than the raytrace. So, the rotation in the env. node is not in the same universe as my env. sphere rotations. How do they relate to each other? Does anyone know? Thanks, Nancy On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Hey. Is there a way to somehow connect my actual mapped environment sphere to the environment node on a material shader, so that the node will read the rotation of the image? I'm trying to get some cheap reflections from my environment. I know to put an environment node on the clusters where I want reflections, and switch the reflection mode to environment. The problem is that I need to align the image rotation there with the rotation of the environment sphere I've been working on. The transformation parameters in the environment node (rotation) don't seem to hold the values I type in. So I don't quite trust them. Using the values they change to doesn't look correct. I have a null rotating my environment spheres from world 0,0,0. But the env. sphere will be rotating in the scene animation (relativity!) and so I will need to animate any parameter which maps the environment to match this rotation. I'd like to find some way to be sure the environment node (or pass shader if i go that way) matches the environment sphere I have set up, and follows that rotation. Surely you've all run into this problem before, as the alternative seems to be ray tracing the reflections, which slows the render to a crawl. Thanks, Nancy
Re: Environment sphere issues
Thanks to both Nicholas and Stephen again, that explains a lot more and sounds like a great idea So you can only use this Pano2VR for the transform back and forth? I visited their website -- they have a watermark on the free version. Apparently it costs $93 -- that's pretty steep for my uses, considering I don't need all their other functionality. Doesn't photoshop or some other tool do this conversion? I just signed on to Adobe Creative Cloud...they ought to have something in all that software that would do this, you'd think? On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: I have use both sphere and cross (or cube) mapping for reflections. Both work fine, and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the specific situation. The fact that an environment is a cube is not an issue. It is simply a different way to map the environment. The fact that it is a cube is not apparent in the resulting rendered image. I understand your concern, but it looks just fine. It is just easier to paint out the polar pinches in this format. Nicholas is correct in that you can just turn the change the format of the environment map and you loose nothing. make both a equirectangular and cube format environment map and choose what works best for you. I think you will see there is no difference, except when painting out the pole pinches. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Thanks, Stephen and Nicholas for the information on cubical projection. Frankly, I'm partial to spheres... I've always found them better as background environments -- cubes never seem right, the edges tend to be apparent. especially because this is a scene in a 360 space and i don't want to have to avoid the camera looking at the edges of the cube. But I also don't want to have to avoid the poles of a sphere. But I've never tried the cubical projection in Softimage, is it better somehow? You're right, Nicholas, it would be easier to paint out the distortion in PS. But I don't want to do all that work on creating a cubical projection and have it not read well in the render. Have you used it effectively when you need 360 degree correctness? Thanks! On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: Exactly. Then use the cross version (Pano2VR creates a horizontal cross) setting Softimage's environmental mapping to horizontal cross. Is this not working for you, now? On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Breslow n...@nicholasbreslow.com wrote: The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out the nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of the distortion. You can use Pano2vr http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php for the conversion. After convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar to the Polar method mentioned before. Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would share this. Nicholas Breslow From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment for a seamless space experience. Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill have to drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That plugin you linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe ill find a use for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your images and not mine. Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening visually near the bottom and top of the image. On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote: Here is a nice article on creating cubic environment maps from stitched panoramic photos, using Blender. very clever: http://www.aerotwist.com/tutorials/create-your-own-environment-maps/ On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind of smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I wonder what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas? Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was going to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is trying to solve this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin overcompensates? I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if I could get any image to show up on the sphere. Thanks again, Nancy
Re: Environment sphere issues
Thanks, Stephen and Nicholas for the information on cubical projection.
Frankly, I'm partial to spheres... I've always found them better as background
environments -- cubes never seem right, the edges tend to be apparent.
especially because this is a scene in a 360 space and i don't want to have to
avoid the camera looking at the edges of the cube. But I also don't want to
have to avoid the poles of a sphere. But I've never tried the cubical
projection in Softimage, is it better somehow? You're right, Nicholas, it would
be easier to paint out the distortion in PS. But I don't want to do all that
work on creating a cubical projection and have it not read well in the render.
Have you used it effectively when you need 360 degree correctness?
Thanks!
On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Exactly. Then use the cross version (Pano2VR creates a horizontal cross)
setting Softimage's environmental mapping to horizontal cross.
Is this not working for you, now?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Breslow n...@nicholasbreslow.com
wrote:
The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the
equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out the
nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of the
distortion. You can use Pano2vr http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php
for the conversion. After convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar
to the Polar method mentioned before.
Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would
share this.
Nicholas Breslow
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues
Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment
for a seamless space experience.
Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job
rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill have
to drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That plugin
you linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe ill find
a use for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your images and not
mine. Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening visually near
the bottom and top of the image.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Here is a nice article on creating cubic environment maps from stitched
panoramic photos, using Blender.
very clever:
http://www.aerotwist.com/tutorials/create-your-own-environment-maps/
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote:
Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind of
smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I wonder
what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas?
Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was
going to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is trying
to solve this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin overcompensates?
I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if I
could get any image to show up on the sphere.
Thanks again,
Nancy
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
If you have Photoshop, here is a link to something called spherical mapping
corrector:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/software/downloads/
No 64 bit support, I believe.
here is the install and use docs:
Spherical Mapping Corrector - v1.4, © 2008 Richard Rosenman Advertising
Design. Release date: 03/15/03, Updated 09/28/08.
INSTALLATION:
Simply unzip spheremap.zip and copy spheremap.8bf to your
\Photoshop\Plug-Ins\ folder, or whichever plugin folder your host program
uses. Load your program, open an image, go to the plugins menu and select
the plugin.
DESCRIPTION:
This filter produces texture map correction for spherical mapping.
When projecting a rectangular texture onto a sphere using traditional
spherical mapping coordinates, distortion ('pinching') occurs at the poles
where the texture must come to a point. Given the different topology of a
plane and a sphere, it is impossible to avoid this, or any kind of
distortion. However, by properly distorting the texture map, it is possible
to minimize and even compensate for the polar distortion.
Special thanks to Paul Bourke for allowing his algorithm to be ported to
this plugin. For more information, please visit Mr. Bourke's site at
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/.
Sub-Sampling: Specifies what type of pixel sub-sampling to use
Re: Implicit texture projection not working
Thanks Luca, for letting me know it doesnt show in ogl. it does render -- it seems I had my HDRI disabled so I wasn't getting any light. On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Luca superposit...@gmail.com wrote: Strange. What you need to do is : 1 - Create Sphere 2 - set Sphere or UV projection. 3 - in the same ppg EDIT the Uv Projection and choose Implicit 4 - Render. It should work. 2013/7/28 Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net Luca, I didn't freeze the object, but the image texture doesn't render either. I'm using 2014 also. On Jul 27, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Luca superposit...@gmail.com wrote: Uh... interesting bug, I've just discovered. I remembered freezing an implicit object was losing the Implicit property. But it seems is not like that anymore. To prevent this problem Softimage simply doesn't let you freeze the object. The bug is (if it is a bug as I think it is) after trying to freeze the sphere in Implicit mode and getting the sphere back to explicit it removes the property, but it's impossibile to freeze the object in anyway, and removing the projection it removes the object, too. Softimage still thinks the object is in Implicit mode, without showing the implicit UV. Isn't it weird? SI 2014. 2013/7/28 Luca superposit...@gmail.com If you set implicit projection, it will be visible only in render. Anyway you can't freeze it or it will lose the implicit property. 2013/7/28 Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net Hey, I thought I'd solved my problem with images distorting in spherical mapping, by...what? Reading the manual. But, no Apparently, creating a 'purely implicit' texture projection is supposed to solve this issue of image distortion at the poles. They even have pictures proving it. However, I can't get any image to map to a sphere using this texture projection method. I also found, in the manual, that one is supposed to use an 'image implicit' node to map the image (they don't tell you that initially, you have to accidentally find it...). However, that doesn't work either. All I get is the dreaded generic color one gets when ones texture projection is not in the same universe, if you know what I mean. Having followed the manual's instructions, what am I missing here? Thanks for any, Nancy -- ...superpositiviii...qualunque cosa accada!... -- ...superpositiviii...qualunque cosa accada!... -- ...superpositiviii...qualunque cosa accada!...
Re: Environment sphere issues
Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment for
a seamless space experience.
Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job
rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill have to
drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That plugin you
linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe ill find a use
for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your images and not mine.
Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening visually near the bottom
and top of the image.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Here is a nice article on creating cubic environment maps from stitched
panoramic photos, using Blender.
very clever:
http://www.aerotwist.com/tutorials/create-your-own-environment-maps/
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote:
Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind of
smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I wonder
what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas?
Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was
going to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is trying
to solve this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin overcompensates?
I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if I
could get any image to show up on the sphere.
Thanks again,
Nancy
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
If you have Photoshop, here is a link to something called spherical mapping
corrector:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/software/downloads/
No 64 bit support, I believe.
here is the install and use docs:
Spherical Mapping Corrector - v1.4, © 2008 Richard Rosenman Advertising
Design. Release date: 03/15/03, Updated 09/28/08.
INSTALLATION:
Simply unzip spheremap.zip and copy spheremap.8bf to your
\Photoshop\Plug-Ins\ folder, or whichever plugin folder your host program
uses. Load your program, open an image, go to the plugins menu and select
the plugin.
DESCRIPTION:
This filter produces texture map correction for spherical mapping.
When projecting a rectangular texture onto a sphere using traditional
spherical mapping coordinates, distortion ('pinching') occurs at the poles
where the texture must come to a point. Given the different topology of a
plane and a sphere, it is impossible to avoid this, or any kind of
distortion. However, by properly distorting the texture map, it is possible
to minimize and even compensate for the polar distortion.
Special thanks to Paul Bourke for allowing his algorithm to be ported to
this plugin. For more information, please visit Mr. Bourke's site at
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/.
Sub-Sampling: Specifies what type of pixel sub-sampling to use. (Nearest
Neighbor being fastest, Bicubic being best.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote:
Greetings,
I'm using the old-style environment spheres with an HDR image wrapped to
light the scene, but invisible to rendering, and a beauty image visible to
the render. The problem is the very visible distortion near the poles of
the sphere. I need 360 degree visual acceptability. I am using a
background which I've made seamless in both directions, a 2:1 rectangle.
It seems this worked in renders at one point years ago in another
software. Perhaps even XSII don't recall.
I'm also trying to substitute this arrangement by using both an
environment (using the HDRI), and 'Spherical Mapping' (using the beauty
image), in the Pass Shaders. But I'm getting very strange results, so not
sure if this is the way to go. Also, it's difficult to line them up
properly so that the light in the HDRI is coming from the same place as
the equivalent visible areas in the beauty image -- which of course one
can do easily in the wrapped spheres. But in the pass shaders, they don't
seem to use the same rotation systems...
Any advice on getting an undistorted, seamless image going here? With
proper orientations?
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Best Regards,
Stephen P. Davidson
(954) 552-7956
sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
- Arthur C. Clarke
--
Best Regards,
Stephen P. Davidson
(954) 552-7956
sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
- Arthur C. Clarke
Environment sphere issues
Greetings, I'm using the old-style environment spheres with an HDR image wrapped to light the scene, but invisible to rendering, and a beauty image visible to the render. The problem is the very visible distortion near the poles of the sphere. I need 360 degree visual acceptability. I am using a background which I've made seamless in both directions, a 2:1 rectangle. It seems this worked in renders at one point years ago in another software. Perhaps even XSII don't recall. I'm also trying to substitute this arrangement by using both an environment (using the HDRI), and 'Spherical Mapping' (using the beauty image), in the Pass Shaders. But I'm getting very strange results, so not sure if this is the way to go. Also, it's difficult to line them up properly so that the light in the HDRI is coming from the same place as the equivalent visible areas in the beauty image -- which of course one can do easily in the wrapped spheres. But in the pass shaders, they don't seem to use the same rotation systems... Any advice on getting an undistorted, seamless image going here? With proper orientations? Thanks, Nancy
Implicit texture projection not working
Hey, I thought I'd solved my problem with images distorting in spherical mapping, by...what? Reading the manual. But, no Apparently, creating a 'purely implicit' texture projection is supposed to solve this issue of image distortion at the poles. They even have pictures proving it. However, I can't get any image to map to a sphere using this texture projection method. I also found, in the manual, that one is supposed to use an 'image implicit' node to map the image (they don't tell you that initially, you have to accidentally find it...). However, that doesn't work either. All I get is the dreaded generic color one gets when ones texture projection is not in the same universe, if you know what I mean. Having followed the manual's instructions, what am I missing here? Thanks for any, Nancy
Re: Environment sphere issues
Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind of
smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I wonder
what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas?
Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was going
to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is trying to solve
this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin overcompensates?
I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if I
could get any image to show up on the sphere.
Thanks again,
Nancy
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
If you have Photoshop, here is a link to something called spherical mapping
corrector:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/software/downloads/
No 64 bit support, I believe.
here is the install and use docs:
Spherical Mapping Corrector - v1.4, © 2008 Richard Rosenman Advertising
Design. Release date: 03/15/03, Updated 09/28/08.
INSTALLATION:
Simply unzip spheremap.zip and copy spheremap.8bf to your
\Photoshop\Plug-Ins\ folder, or whichever plugin folder your host program
uses. Load your program, open an image, go to the plugins menu and select the
plugin.
DESCRIPTION:
This filter produces texture map correction for spherical mapping.
When projecting a rectangular texture onto a sphere using traditional
spherical mapping coordinates, distortion ('pinching') occurs at the poles
where the texture must come to a point. Given the different topology of a
plane and a sphere, it is impossible to avoid this, or any kind of
distortion. However, by properly distorting the texture map, it is possible
to minimize and even compensate for the polar distortion.
Special thanks to Paul Bourke for allowing his algorithm to be ported to this
plugin. For more information, please visit Mr. Bourke's site at
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/.
Sub-Sampling: Specifies what type of pixel sub-sampling to use. (Nearest
Neighbor being fastest, Bicubic being best.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote:
Greetings,
I'm using the old-style environment spheres with an HDR image wrapped to
light the scene, but invisible to rendering, and a beauty image visible to
the render. The problem is the very visible distortion near the poles of the
sphere. I need 360 degree visual acceptability. I am using a background
which I've made seamless in both directions, a 2:1 rectangle. It seems this
worked in renders at one point years ago in another software. Perhaps even
XSII don't recall.
I'm also trying to substitute this arrangement by using both an environment
(using the HDRI), and 'Spherical Mapping' (using the beauty image), in the
Pass Shaders. But I'm getting very strange results, so not sure if this is
the way to go. Also, it's difficult to line them up properly so that the
light in the HDRI is coming from the same place as the equivalent visible
areas in the beauty image -- which of course one can do easily in the
wrapped spheres. But in the pass shaders, they don't seem to use the same
rotation systems...
Any advice on getting an undistorted, seamless image going here? With proper
orientations?
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Best Regards,
Stephen P. Davidson
(954) 552-7956
sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
- Arthur C. Clarke
Re: Requesting advice about light object
Hey nevermindI think I got what I need with the mia_lightsurface node piped into the architectural shader, with considerable tweaking Thanks for the ideas! On Jul 5, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: I'm wondering about the suggested use of the rayswitch node for this. Especially Matt and Ahmidou suggested it. Do you mean the mip_rayswitch_advanced? And would I use it to split up the shader influences on one sphere instead of making the two spheres as in Matt's suggestion? Because in your 'old school' method, Matt, which I have been using to light the scene and create a background, with an hdri and a higher res color image (seen), there is not the desired glow effect. But it could create light for the FG, instead of a point light, which may be desirable. Any clearer explanations about using the rayswitch node, in this context? Many thanks, Nancy On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote: Many solutions, but here's an older simple solution: The object emitting illumination should have secondary rays active, and primary rays inactive. This allows rays to be cast for Global illumination, final gathering, etc..., but not be directly visible by the camera. This allows you to use a constant shaded sphere as the emitter. The object acting as the bulb and visible to the camera should have the opposite settings so it appears in the render, but doesn't block the rays cast by the emitter. You may need to do more subtle tweaking of visibility to account of other situations. For those cases I'll refer you to the 'ray switch' node which can perform the same task at a more granular level. Matt -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:02 PM To: Softimage Listserve Subject: Requesting advice about light object Hello, I've been away from XSi for about two years due to illness, but am back working on a project. So, this may be very easy for you guys to answer. I'm feeling noobness here, having forgotten so many things! I'm trying to make a small sphere look like a light source, illuminating part of the scene, which is only lit by final gathering and a globe HDR object. I'm pretty sure I've done this successfully before, but it's failing me this time...;-) I can't make the sphere a constant material, because I want it to use many of the attributes of the architectural shader. In other words, I want it to be a reflective ball which is glowing and emitting light. I like the simplified emulated reflections i was getting by using optimizations in the architectural shader (also the rendering time advantage). So, I tried putting a point light inside it, which has somewhat fouled up the nice surface I had going with the architectural shader. And there is no 'incandescence' in this shader to make it appear glowing. I don't want to see the actual point light in the render, but I do want the ball itself to be a bit luminous. I'm also having a lot of trouble with the light attenuation using the exponent. Does anyone have any idea how to measure 'Softimage units' in ones scene? Do they relate to say, the sphere radius I am using? Or is that a whole 'nother thing Anyone who can give me some ideas or point me to some info about this glowing sphere light thing, much appreciated... Seems so rudimentary... Thanks, Nancy
This is driving me crazy...
Hey, sorry to bother you guys again so soon, but wondering if anyone knows what would make portal lights NOT show the image behind them, in the background, wrapped in the environment sphere. This is an old problem I never could figure out, and it's driving me crazy... I have a room environment where I want to use portal lights, but when I turn on area lightvisible in render, the portal light blocks the view outside. If I switch that off, I get error messages about how it is supposed to be on. A couple years ago Manny sent me a test file which has portal lights working as they are supposed to, and I even imported my double-sphere environment into it, and the lights work ok with it (they don't block the background image), with area lightvisible in render switched on. Portal lights with these same settings block out the same environment background in my project. It's one of those visible hi res background spheres, plus a visible only to secondary rays HDR sphere to light the scene. IT works in the test scene, so why not the real scene? I swear I've checked everything. In the test file it seems you can check all sorts of visibility options on and off, and nothing matters except keeping the 'visible in render' parameter in the PORTAL LIGHT/Color section switched off, and it still reveals the background, as should be. Anyway, if anyone has encountered this very frustrating problem, please let me know what I could be missing. Any ideas? Possibilities? Thanks, Nancy
Re: This is driving me crazy...
Yeah, both those things = true But hey, I just figured it out at 5am. Turns out, you have to make sure that, under Visibility/Rendering/transparency is ON for the background you want to see, and OFF for the HDR image. I guess the portal lights show what they are 'transparent' toMy portal lights were seeing the HDR blown out image, and not seeing the background. Finally I figure this one outnow I get to go to sleep cheers! On Jul 6, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Cesar Saez cesa...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Nancy, Make sure you are using 'Portal Light (mia)' node (there are 2 portal_light nodes) and 'visible in render' (just below 'Tint') is turned off. Cheers! On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote: Hey, sorry to bother you guys again so soon, but wondering if anyone knows what would make portal lights NOT show the image behind them, in the background, wrapped in the environment sphere. This is an old problem I never could figure out, and it's driving me crazy... I have a room environment where I want to use portal lights, but when I turn on area lightvisible in render, the portal light blocks the view outside. If I switch that off, I get error messages about how it is supposed to be on. A couple years ago Manny sent me a test file which has portal lights working as they are supposed to, and I even imported my double-sphere environment into it, and the lights work ok with it (they don't block the background image), with area lightvisible in render switched on. Portal lights with these same settings block out the same environment background in my project. It's one of those visible hi res background spheres, plus a visible only to secondary rays HDR sphere to light the scene. IT works in the test scene, so why not the real scene? I swear I've checked everything. In the test file it seems you can check all sorts of visibility options on and off, and nothing matters except keeping the 'visible in render' parameter in the PORTAL LIGHT/Color section switched off, and it still reveals the background, as should be. Anyway, if anyone has encountered this very frustrating problem, please let me know what I could be missing. Any ideas? Possibilities? Thanks, Nancy
Re: Requesting advice about light object
I'm wondering about the suggested use of the rayswitch node for this. Especially Matt and Ahmidou suggested it. Do you mean the mip_rayswitch_advanced? And would I use it to split up the shader influences on one sphere instead of making the two spheres as in Matt's suggestion? Because in your 'old school' method, Matt, which I have been using to light the scene and create a background, with an hdri and a higher res color image (seen), there is not the desired glow effect. But it could create light for the FG, instead of a point light, which may be desirable. Any clearer explanations about using the rayswitch node, in this context? Many thanks, Nancy On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote: Many solutions, but here's an older simple solution: The object emitting illumination should have secondary rays active, and primary rays inactive. This allows rays to be cast for Global illumination, final gathering, etc..., but not be directly visible by the camera. This allows you to use a constant shaded sphere as the emitter. The object acting as the bulb and visible to the camera should have the opposite settings so it appears in the render, but doesn't block the rays cast by the emitter. You may need to do more subtle tweaking of visibility to account of other situations. For those cases I'll refer you to the 'ray switch' node which can perform the same task at a more granular level. Matt -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:02 PM To: Softimage Listserve Subject: Requesting advice about light object Hello, I've been away from XSi for about two years due to illness, but am back working on a project. So, this may be very easy for you guys to answer. I'm feeling noobness here, having forgotten so many things! I'm trying to make a small sphere look like a light source, illuminating part of the scene, which is only lit by final gathering and a globe HDR object. I'm pretty sure I've done this successfully before, but it's failing me this time...;-) I can't make the sphere a constant material, because I want it to use many of the attributes of the architectural shader. In other words, I want it to be a reflective ball which is glowing and emitting light. I like the simplified emulated reflections i was getting by using optimizations in the architectural shader (also the rendering time advantage). So, I tried putting a point light inside it, which has somewhat fouled up the nice surface I had going with the architectural shader. And there is no 'incandescence' in this shader to make it appear glowing. I don't want to see the actual point light in the render, but I do want the ball itself to be a bit luminous. I'm also having a lot of trouble with the light attenuation using the exponent. Does anyone have any idea how to measure 'Softimage units' in ones scene? Do they relate to say, the sphere radius I am using? Or is that a whole 'nother thing Anyone who can give me some ideas or point me to some info about this glowing sphere light thing, much appreciated... Seems so rudimentary... Thanks, Nancy
Requesting advice about light object
Hello, I've been away from XSi for about two years due to illness, but am back working on a project. So, this may be very easy for you guys to answer. I'm feeling noobness here, having forgotten so many things! I'm trying to make a small sphere look like a light source, illuminating part of the scene, which is only lit by final gathering and a globe HDR object. I'm pretty sure I've done this successfully before, but it's failing me this time...;-) I can't make the sphere a constant material, because I want it to use many of the attributes of the architectural shader. In other words, I want it to be a reflective ball which is glowing and emitting light. I like the simplified emulated reflections i was getting by using optimizations in the architectural shader (also the rendering time advantage). So, I tried putting a point light inside it, which has somewhat fouled up the nice surface I had going with the architectural shader. And there is no 'incandescence' in this shader to make it appear glowing. I don't want to see the actual point light in the render, but I do want the ball itself to be a bit luminous. I'm also having a lot of trouble with the light attenuation using the exponent. Does anyone have any idea how to measure 'Softimage units' in ones scene? Do they relate to say, the sphere radius I am using? Or is that a whole 'nother thing Anyone who can give me some ideas or point me to some info about this glowing sphere light thing, much appreciated... Seems so rudimentary... Thanks, Nancy
Re: Requesting advice about light object
These all sound like good ideas... I did try out the mia light surface shader, and got a bit closer to what I want, but i'll definitely check all these ideas out next work session. Thanks! On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Rares Halmagean ra...@rarebrush.com wrote: Another solution Nancy, may be to composite a render of the constant shaded material over your architectural sphere depending on how comfortable you are with approach. Or a simpler solution than the one I suggested earler comes to mind; Use a mix_2_colors node by plugging the architectural shaders out into mix2color base_color input, plug the lambert or constants out into mix2color color 1 followed by mix_2_colors out to surface input of the material node, making sure to dial the constant node contribution via the weight rgba in the mix layer of the mix_2_colors node. That way you maintain the architectural material surface properties and mix in the incandescent property of the constant shader. You may have to play around with the architectural shader diffuse, reflection properties and mix2colors mix layer properties till you get the look you want. gdfdifhb.jpg -Rares On 7/3/2013 8:46 PM, Matt Lind wrote: Many solutions, but here's an older simple solution: The object emitting illumination should have secondary rays active, and primary rays inactive. This allows rays to be cast for Global illumination, final gathering, etc..., but not be directly visible by the camera. This allows you to use a constant shaded sphere as the emitter. The object acting as the bulb and visible to the camera should have the opposite settings so it appears in the render, but doesn't block the rays cast by the emitter. You may need to do more subtle tweaking of visibility to account of other situations. For those cases I'll refer you to the 'ray switch' node which can perform the same task at a more granular level. Matt -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:02 PM To: Softimage Listserve Subject: Requesting advice about light object Hello, I've been away from XSi for about two years due to illness, but am back working on a project. So, this may be very easy for you guys to answer. I'm feeling noobness here, having forgotten so many things! I'm trying to make a small sphere look like a light source, illuminating part of the scene, which is only lit by final gathering and a globe HDR object. I'm pretty sure I've done this successfully before, but it's failing me this time...;-) I can't make the sphere a constant material, because I want it to use many of the attributes of the architectural shader. In other words, I want it to be a reflective ball which is glowing and emitting light. I like the simplified emulated reflections i was getting by using optimizations in the architectural shader (also the rendering time advantage). So, I tried putting a point light inside it, which has somewhat fouled up the nice surface I had going with the architectural shader. And there is no 'incandescence' in this shader to make it appear glowing. I don't want to see the actual point light in the render, but I do want the ball itself to be a bit luminous. I'm also having a lot of trouble with the light attenuation using the exponent. Does anyone have any idea how to measure 'Softimage units' in ones scene? Do they relate to say, the sphere radius I am using? Or is that a whole 'nother thing Anyone who can give me some ideas or point me to some info about this glowing sphere light thing, much appreciated... Seems so rudimentary... Thanks, Nancy -- Rares Halmagean ___ visual development and 3d character content creation. rarebrush.com
Re: Requesting advice about light object
Wow, here's a duh momentas that's exactly what I'm doing with the 2 environment spheres, with the visible image and the invisible HDR image! So, i'll try it on a smaller scale for this as well. Not familiar with the ray switch mode, though, I will have to look into that. Thank you Matt. With this I wouldn't need the point light either, as I'm using FG anyway. On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Matt Lind ml...@carbinestudios.com wrote: Many solutions, but here's an older simple solution: The object emitting illumination should have secondary rays active, and primary rays inactive. This allows rays to be cast for Global illumination, final gathering, etc..., but not be directly visible by the camera. This allows you to use a constant shaded sphere as the emitter. The object acting as the bulb and visible to the camera should have the opposite settings so it appears in the render, but doesn't block the rays cast by the emitter. You may need to do more subtle tweaking of visibility to account of other situations. For those cases I'll refer you to the 'ray switch' node which can perform the same task at a more granular level. Matt -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 3:02 PM To: Softimage Listserve Subject: Requesting advice about light object Hello, I've been away from XSi for about two years due to illness, but am back working on a project. So, this may be very easy for you guys to answer. I'm feeling noobness here, having forgotten so many things! I'm trying to make a small sphere look like a light source, illuminating part of the scene, which is only lit by final gathering and a globe HDR object. I'm pretty sure I've done this successfully before, but it's failing me this time...;-) I can't make the sphere a constant material, because I want it to use many of the attributes of the architectural shader. In other words, I want it to be a reflective ball which is glowing and emitting light. I like the simplified emulated reflections i was getting by using optimizations in the architectural shader (also the rendering time advantage). So, I tried putting a point light inside it, which has somewhat fouled up the nice surface I had going with the architectural shader. And there is no 'incandescence' in this shader to make it appear glowing. I don't want to see the actual point light in the render, but I do want the ball itself to be a bit luminous. I'm also having a lot of trouble with the light attenuation using the exponent. Does anyone have any idea how to measure 'Softimage units' in ones scene? Do they relate to say, the sphere radius I am using? Or is that a whole 'nother thing Anyone who can give me some ideas or point me to some info about this glowing sphere light thing, much appreciated... Seems so rudimentary... Thanks, Nancy
