I do have indirect illumination (FG) in my scene, including a few lights, that is the problem why it's dark, I don't have the FG pass composited :-)
The Gamma 2.2 is a sRGB node in composite. I'm going to give your flipbook tip a try, thank you for the tutorials and the help :) ::Christopher:: Tim Leydecker wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > do you have indirect illumination as your main source of light in the > scene? > > Technically, your composite comp seems correct, you multiply raw > diffuse by it´s diffuse level (wheight). > If there is hardly any direct light contribution, your result will be > pretty much black. > You would need to add that indirect illumination contribution to get > your illumination/brightness back. > > I´m not sure about the gamma 2.2 node you´ve put in, it could as well > need be for a 0.4545 value gamma node > instead and even obsolete if you output to *.exr. I don´t know how > Composite handles the display of linear files, > e.g. if you can set a display gamma for the viewer but leave the files > linear as in nuke? > > A quite reliabe way to check raw renderelements is using the xsi > flipbook, it´ll show you *.exr with > a (preview!)gamma for the display of 2.2 by default but leaves the > files unmodified, where Photoshop > wants you to assign a colorprofile on import (which is not helping in > verifying a file, yes). > That is similar to nuke displaying linear files (if the viewer is set > to 2.2/sRGB). > > AfterEffects is not bad in general for working in linear space but it > would be cumbersome to daisychain > your various multiply and add operations on your layers due to the > "stacking layers" approach to compositing > of AE. > > That said, here´s a few tutorials I find helpful whenever I have to > remember the proper workflows or > figure out what I did, they are for VRay but easy enough to transfer > in terms of concept. > > I hope this helps, it can be hard to get working in linear space > right, which is the foundation > to be able to properly composite raw outputs into a beauty that looks > like it was supposed to. > > -- > > My favourite (I always have to get back to that one when I set up > renderlayers for compositing): > > http://vray.info/tutorials/basiccomping/ > > -- > > Similar approach, some extra info: > > http://www.jlynson.com/basic-renderpass-compositing-in-vray/ > > -- > > Compositing things in Photoshop: > > http://www.timsportfolio.co.uk/tutorials/renderelements/ > > http://www.3dtotal.com/tutorial/3d_studio_max/compositing_vray_render_elements/vray_render_elements_01.php > > > > http://cg.tutsplus.com/tutorials/chaos-group-vray/compositing-v-ray-render-layers-in-photoshop/ > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 05.06.2013 08:19, Jens Lindgren wrote: >> And those files are EXRs right? >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Christopher >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I did the composite in composite (no pun intended) The result is >> the same as photoshop, doesn't make sense. The Gamma 2.2 node is a >> sRGB node, the blend & comp settings are >> above the composite tree. >> >> Can anyone clarify if this is correct and I need to proceed with >> the other layers for it to look like the render or is something not >> flowing correctly ? >> >> ::Christopher:: >> >> >> Christopher wrote: >>> Thanks for the suggestions and tips, very helpful :) I have >>> composite installed, I wonder if I should even use After Effects if >>> working in linear is so much problem, rather >>> go between FXTree and/or composite, composite for 2013 is >>> probably the most stable, I can't speak for 2014. >>> (did this message go though, lately having server problems --- >>> delay ?) >>> ::Christopher:: >>> >>> Rob Wuijster wrote: >>>> You could use AE, but it's still a pain in the behind. Adobe >>>> just doesn't get linear workflow. >>>> >>>> And PS might be better in CS4,5,whatever, it's no compositor. >>>> You can try the FXTree, or install Composite, it comes with >>>> Softimage. >>>> >>>> Other than that you can try Blender, it has a pretty decent >>>> compositor for a free app. >>>> Nuke, or Fusion are too expensive for most people, despite >>>> being the better apps for compositing. >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> \/-------------\/----------------\/ >>>> On 3-6-2013 18:50, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> changing the image/look radically. >>>>> Adding a ton of technical passes together in a “correct” way – >>>>> creating the look in compositing and then heavily >>>>> modifying/manipulating it is a minefield. >>>>> I would only recommend Nuke for that. >>>>> If you just put the layers together – with a few small changes >>>>> perhaps – than FXtree is just fine. >>>>> *From:* Christopher <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 03, 2013 6:30 PM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: Compositing Levels >>>>> I have never touched the FXTree, I will start now with this >>>>> comp :) What do you mean transform the image ? >>>>> >>>>> ::Christopher:: >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> better not ask my opinion on any adobe product – at least I >>>>>> can see some use for Photoshop – but compositing it aint. >>>>>> I whish I could recommend FXtree without caveats – as you >>>>>> have it right there in XSI and to a degree it will work - quite >>>>>> well even. >>>>>> But there are some pitfalls. Clipping is one of them – and it >>>>>> doesn’t have display gamma afaik – so you’ll have to resort to >>>>>> adding a 2.2 gamma in the end of the comp (not >>>>>> on the luma but on R G B each!) >>>>>> Last I did a multi-channel-comp in FXtree compared to beauty >>>>>> render – I got it almost perfect. For a simple case that is. >>>>>> If you don’t intend totally transform the image it’s probably >>>>>> fine – and by any means, much less of a headache than Photoshop. >>>>>> *From:* Christopher <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 03, 2013 6:07 PM >>>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Compositing Levels >>>>>> For a program that cost $1K such as Ps it's quite restricted >>>>>> for this type of work, I still wonder why I have a zillion color >>>>>> profiles in Photoshop. I imported the levels >>>>>> as linear gamma, but upon import in photoshop I let photoshop >>>>>> apply sRGB (2.2 gamma), I suppose I shouldn't. You make it sound >>>>>> as though I will fight will Ps to get >>>>>> things right, although you probably are right :) >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm going to do the comp all in linear, see what results I >>>>>> get. I need to find an alternative to Photoshop, Nuke I don't >>>>>> use here. Is AE more better then Ps, or more of >>>>>> the same ? >>>>>> >>>>>> ::Christopher:: >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> > If the above is correct, what is ticking me off is it is >>>>>>> so dark, when I render in the renderer, it's nice,... >>>>>>> are you looking at it with proper gamma correction? >>>>>>> oh right it’s photoshop... >>>>>>> well, in XSI you are probably seeing the linear image with a >>>>>>> gamma correction added (which is the desired way to work) – but >>>>>>> most other software will show it without >>>>>>> gamma - So if you add a gamma of 2.2, chances are it will >>>>>>> look like what you expected. >>>>>>> But here’s the twist: you should not be using that gamma – >>>>>>> first do the comp and add it in the end. Or actually – better >>>>>>> not add the gamma at all and rather export the >>>>>>> image to the correct target color space. >>>>>>> > Photoshop 'add' blend mode doesn't work in 32-bit color >>>>>>> space, what is the correct alternative ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nuke. >>>>>>> Really – you can’t expect to use Photoshop for a comp like >>>>>>> that and have the same result as in the renderer – it has the >>>>>>> maths all wrong and doesn’t even know how to >>>>>>> handle an alpha. >>>>>>> What you’re trying to do will work correctly the first time >>>>>>> around you try it in nuke (ok – perhaps that’s wishful thinking) >>>>>>> Add (or Plus in Nuke terms) is the one and only proper blend >>>>>>> mode to use - it’s called linear dodge or something senseless >>>>>>> like that in Photoshop I think. >>>>>>> Screen is not correct - though handy at times, it will never >>>>>>> give you the same result as in the renderer. (except for the >>>>>>> speculars in the mr skin shader – but that’s >>>>>>> another story) >>>>>>> Seriously – photoshop isn’t worth all the pain for this kind >>>>>>> of thing. I know it might sound harsh but that’s just how it is >>>>>>> – photoshop will not work the same way as the >>>>>>> renderer. >>>>>>> If you just want to mess around with some layers and make >>>>>>> something whatever – I guess you can use photoshop – but if you >>>>>>> want to get the same, correct result, as in the >>>>>>> renderer – don’t use photoshop. >>>>>>> If your client wants to receive a layered photoshop comp... >>>>>>> then though luck. >>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this message. >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>>> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6379 - Release >>>>> Date: 06/03/13 >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jens Lindgren >> -------------------------- >> Lead Technical Director >> Magoo 3D Studios <http://www.magoo3dstudios.com/>
