Luxus discussion
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The big thing is to use the area lights... they give a nice soft glow. There's instructions in the guide, but just add a primitive plane to the scene, select it, click on the surface tab, then there's a script to convert to a luxrender material, with an option for lights... select the lights.. then you can set colors, intensity, etc...
Thanks, I probably will. Will try a few things first to see if I can get it resolved without stealing your time.
I was thinking it might also have something to do with zoom size but... that's where my thought trails off. It feels like there is a difference between what Lux thinks it is rendering vs what your viewport thinks should be there. As if there are two different cameras (even though I only see the one in your screenshot) or it's acting like spot render does not work on ortho views.
Just throwing those thoughts out there to see if anything ends up sticking.
~Bluebird
Almost all the textures that I encounter look correct when gamma is 1.0 When I set the texture gamma to 2.2, like they recommend, I get super-ized color.
For those that want ultimate control over it there is Eluxir.
Here is a an illustration on the matter. On the left is a single photo texture (from cgtextures.com); it is gamma encoded, like practically every photograph is. I added a black and white spot for reference. I applied this texture to a square primitive added a distantlight shining directly on it, pointed the camera directly to it and rendered with different settings (texture-gamma and tonemapping-gamma both with 1 and 2.2). The only "correct" result possible is the render looking exactly like the original texture. That is only the case when the texture-gamma is the same as the tonemapping-gamma. When texture-gamma is 1 and the tonemapping uses 2.2 you get the washed out colors resulting from the textures being gamma corrected twice. Setting texture gamma to 2.2 and tonemapping to 1, you will get the lower left image with the high contrast colors. It is not suitable for posting on the internet, but if i wanted to composite it with other images in gimp, i would prefer this image, because most compositing operations are linear, and i can add the gamma correction later anyway (linear workflow).
So the two images (texture/tonemap gamma both 1 and texture/tonemap gamma both 2.2) look identical in this example. However, they only do because of i used a single distant light. In the lower two images i added a single pointlight instead of the distantlight, (invisible; above the white spot) and a white matte sphere in the center, and now the images no longer are the same. The image with the gamma 1 (left) is much darker than the image with the 2.2, while the colors of the textures are still alright.
(BTW, the lower left image with the too dark pointlight, is a common problem with not only luxrender, but also with 3delight. It is often be dealt with by setting the light falloff to linear. That works to a degree because the gamma correction value 2.2 is very close to the square falloff exponent, i.e. 2, so the two are cancelling each other out. But this is only the case for the square light falloff, not for any other effects on the color. In particular that kind render (with gamma=1) will give nasty problems with transparency if one tries to composite it in gimp, photoshop and such, usually resulting in bright or dark borders where the objects meet with the background.)
However with luxrender being based on physical models, there is no such thing as linear falloff pointlights anyway, hence the recommendation to always render with texture-gamma 2.2. For the tonemapping gamma you would normally use 2.2 (if you want the image to look like a photograph), but you might render with tonemapping-gamma=1 if you are planning on compositing the image in another application (and applying 2.2 gamma later), but you can always save as an openexr file which will never be gamma corrected anyway.
Here is a an illustration on the matter. On the left is a single photo texture (from cgtextures.com); it is gamma encoded, like practically every photograph is. I added a black and white spot for reference. I applied this texture to a square primitive added a distantlight shining directly on it, pointed the camera directly to it and rendered with different settings (texture-gamma and tonemapping-gamma both with 1 and 2.2). The only "correct" result possible is the render looking exactly like the original texture. That is only the case when the texture-gamma is the same as the tonemapping-gamma. When texture-gamma is 1 and the tonemapping uses 2.2 you get the washed out colors resulting from the textures being gamma corrected twice. Setting texture gamma to 2.2 and tonemapping to 1, you will get the lower left image with the high contrast colors. It is not suitable for posting on the internet, but if i wanted to composite it with other images in gimp, i would prefer this image, because most compositing operations are linear, and i can add the gamma correction later anyway (linear workflow).
So the two images (texture/tonemap gamma both 1 and texture/tonemap gamma both 2.2) look identical in this example. However, they only do because of i used a single distant light. In the lower two images i added a single pointlight instead of the distantlight, (invisible; above the white spot) and a white matte sphere in the center, and now the images no longer are the same. The image with the gamma 1 (left) is much darker than the image with the 2.2, while the colors of the textures are still alright.
(BTW, the lower left image with the too dark pointlight, is a common problem with not only luxrender, but also with 3delight. It is often be dealt with by setting the light falloff to linear. That works to a degree because the gamma correction value 2.2 is very close to the square falloff exponent, i.e. 2, so the two are cancelling each other out. But this is only the case for the square light falloff, not for any other effects on the color. In particular that kind render (with gamma=1) will give nasty problems with transparency if one tries to composite it in gimp, photoshop and such, usually resulting in bright or dark borders where the objects meet with the background.)
However with luxrender being based on physical models, there is no such thing as linear falloff pointlights anyway, hence the recommendation to always render with texture-gamma 2.2. For the tonemapping gamma you would normally use 2.2 (if you want the image to look like a photograph), but you might render with tonemapping-gamma=1 if you are planning on compositing the image in another application (and applying 2.2 gamma later), but you can always save as an openexr file which will never be gamma corrected anyway.
-Great- illustration!! Thank you for taking the time to create and share that.
~Bluebird
Must admit, it's a bit of a struggle when you haven't used LuxRender before, but luckily BlueBird has tutorials coming up, should be in the store s**n...
I've had that type of trouble using the 3Delight spot render before, when some part of the spot I select to be rendered was outside the aspect frame. Have you tried setting the render dimensions to 'Active Viewport'?
good info.
Must admit, it's a bit of a struggle when you haven't used LuxRender before, but luckily BlueBird has tutorials coming up, should be in the store s**n...
I'm putting two area lights in each scene (to the left and right of the camera, facing the subject) in addition to whatever lighting I'm using for the scene. Then in the LuxRender GUI, I can turn them up however high I need them to get the light level I want, or turn them off if the scene lights are sufficient. It's nice to have the option of just turning one light up a tiny bit instead of having to change lights and re-start the render over and over until it's right.
In the LuxRender GUI you can go to the Files menu and you can Save, Load and Resume FLMs. :)
Also, In DS if you set your Render Settings to render to Image and select a path, your FLM, Image and any support files will be saved in that path. You can resume a stopped render as well as have the most recent version of the image. (LuxRender saves every xx seconds, so you should have the last saved image all safe and sound, even if Windows decided to be stupid and reboot.)
Hope this helps.
Luxrender should have the option of creating an FLM file that can be used to "pick up" the render where it left off. While that does save your scene in progress you need to be ware that your power settings can stop LuxRender dead in it's tracks. I turn "put computer to sleep" off.
Get used to keeping your computer on over night and make sure airflow and dust bunnies are down to a minimum. Most applications you use will never max out your CPU for sustained periods of time, but LuxRender will. Warm rooms, poor ventilation and space heaters will make a CPU act like it just got hold of some funny tasting brownies at a Jefferson Airplane Concert (e.g. Heat+CPU=BAD)
Also, if anyone is having problems with arealights and are using a plane as the 'base'...you may need to flip its direction. It will emit light in the 'normals' out direction...which is the side facing up when it is added to the scene.
Here is a an illustration on the matter. On the left is a single photo texture (from cgtextures.com); it is gamma encoded, like practically every photograph is. I added a black and white spot for reference. I applied this texture to a square primitive added a distantlight shining directly on it, pointed the camera directly to it and rendered with different settings (texture-gamma and tonemapping-gamma both with 1 and 2.2). The only "correct" result possible is the render looking exactly like the original texture. That is only the case when the texture-gamma is the same as the tonemapping-gamma. When texture-gamma is 1 and the tonemapping uses 2.2 you get the washed out colors resulting from the textures being gamma corrected twice. Setting texture gamma to 2.2 and tonemapping to 1, you will get the lower left image with the high contrast colors. It is not suitable for posting on the internet, but if i wanted to composite it with other images in gimp, i would prefer this image, because most compositing operations are linear, and i can add the gamma correction later anyway (linear workflow).
So the two images (texture/tonemap gamma both 1 and texture/tonemap gamma both 2.2) look identical in this example. However, they only do because of i used a single distant light. In the lower two images i added a single pointlight instead of the distantlight, (invisible; above the white spot) and a white matte sphere in the center, and now the images no longer are the same. The image with the gamma 1 (left) is much darker than the image with the 2.2, while the colors of the textures are still alright.
(BTW, the lower left image with the too dark pointlight, is a common problem with not only luxrender, but also with 3delight. It is often be dealt with by setting the light falloff to linear. That works to a degree because the gamma correction value 2.2 is very close to the square falloff exponent, i.e. 2, so the two are cancelling each other out. But this is only the case for the square light falloff, not for any other effects on the color. In particular that kind render (with gamma=1) will give nasty problems with transparency if one tries to composite it in gimp, photoshop and such, usually resulting in bright or dark borders where the objects meet with the background.)
However with luxrender being based on physical models, there is no such thing as linear falloff pointlights anyway, hence the recommendation to always render with texture-gamma 2.2. For the tonemapping gamma you would normally use 2.2 (if you want the image to look like a photograph), but you might render with tonemapping-gamma=1 if you are planning on compositing the image in another application (and applying 2.2 gamma later), but you can always save as an openexr file which will never be gamma corrected anyway.
OK, I am starting to understand.
Here is another example; i used stonemason's village courtyard and the sky/sun that comes with luxus. I did not change the materials, the sun was turned so that there is no direct light in view, so everything is lit diffusely. I rendered twice, once with texture/tonemapping-gamma set to 2.2, once with 1.0, no other changes are made. The results are below. The 2.2-image looks good, whereas the 1.0-gamma image looks like a 100 years old photography; i used the "autolinear" tonemapping that works like camera with automatic shutter speed; naturally the gamma=1 image would darker than the gamma=2.2 image, but the automatic adjustment makes it linearly brighter, which results in overly bright areas in the image (quite a few images in this thread look just like that), but the error is the texture gamma being 1, not the tonemapping, which makes it practically impossible to correct afterwards.
Is there a way to use something other than a plane as the base?
Is there a way to use something other than a plane as the base?
You can use any primative or surface as a light source.
You can use any primative or surface as a light source.
^^^
You don't really have that problem with other primitives, because all sides are 'out'...the plane has a 'top' and a 'bottom'...
So the correct things to do would be to default to 2.2, but if the texture is an exr or hdr default to 1.0 and provide a manual override.
You can use any primative or surface as a light source.
Keep in mind, you want to keep the polygons down when sending to luxrender, so the plane is pretty good for lighting a scene. The more polys you send, the longer the render takes and more memory used. You can tell where the normals are facing by either using the universal or selection tool... the green (i think the z-axis) will point in the director of where the light will go on a plane.
A surface can be a light source? Well, now I have to try somethings......
This is all good info guys---thanks for sharing!
OK solved a problem I had :D
I really had no problem sending a high poly item :D I made a cat picture, cat furred with LAMH plugin, hair exported to DS as an object (um 350,000 hair) x3 because I had 3 instances of it loaded.... HEHEHE.
Rendered gorgeous.
But!!!!!!!!!!!
How do I render with a background image? I don't want the sky that comes with lux..... when I tried the sun only light the rest of the scene was black. OOPS.
my image is slightly postworked, because I had done one regular render with 3delight and one render with Luxus. I erased the luxus sky so the sky from my 3delight image was showing.
I truly love how pretty this came out.
I find myself doing the same thing I had saved skies from LDP2 and often post work them with lux if you blend it properly it can work quite well. http://fav.me/d5msexw
Very cute belovedalia! :)
Yes but tweaking materials will give one nice results http://fav.me/d5sxa4o
So the correct things to do would be to default to 2.2, but if the texture is an exr or hdr default to 1.0 and provide a manual override.
Essentially yes. In general gamma 2.2 is to be used for photographic textures and most other textures that contain colors and which are actually used as color textures. Exceptions are:
- normal maps usually use gamma=1 regardless of containing colors (because they are not produced by cameras or paint programs, but are generated by baking)
- most hdr/exr images contain gamma=1, because they are mainly built with lighting in mind, so the specification already says that the should be gamma=1.
- transparency/opacity maps most often contain gamma=1 values.
- bump and displacement maps most often contain gamma=1 values
I think the last two (displacement/transparency) are often most difficult to classify. This is because of the process they are created in (i.e. a texture artist derives them from a photograph with gamma 2.2 by desaturation in photoshop, the devil knows what color-profile they are using, then trying it out in 3delight probably with gamma=1, until it looks good enough on an old uncalibrated monitor). But i think gamma=1 should be used in the most cases.
If you were referring to Male-M3dia's post about keeping the poly count down, I believe he was specifically talking about light sources (though of course keeping down your poly count in all cases is always optimal).
If you turn a simple cube into a light source, it is actually 6 light sources, because each face counts as a light source as far as Luxrender is concerned when it comes to tracing light paths. A complex item turned into a light source can overwhelm a render quite quickly, either slowing down the render tremendously, or even making it so that you can't render at all.
I often use cubes sized at 1cm in place of light bulbs or flames when doing renders, since they aren't overly poly heavy, and cast light in all directions. If the cube shows up in my final render, I simply get rid of the spot in Photoshop during postwork (often by adding a photo of a bulb or flame over the spot). If I need a light bulb to show up in the render with the element showing, I use a bulb prop with the element set as a light (and often I have to post the element to a darker reddish/orange color to look right).
Keep in mind that LuxRender will tessellate quads in to tris, so your face count in Lux is actually double what it is in Studio.
Ok totally a newbie question, can you turn down the shadows or make them less pronounced? If so how? Thanks so much.
Make your area light larger reduces shadowing smaller makes them more pronounced
Awesome! Thanks Bobvan
You can use any primative or surface as a light source.
Keep in mind, you want to keep the polygons down when sending to luxrender, so the plane is pretty good for lighting a scene. The more polys you send, the longer the render takes and more memory used. You can tell where the normals are facing by either using the universal or selection tool... the green (i think the z-axis) will point in the director of where the light will go on a plane.
Ok--I took the surfaces for all the candle flames in Opus Magnus and made them light sources. They are mighty bright, so that may not be a good idea, but I like the effect. The flames were the only light source I used--adding an area light would probably help the glowing walls and such...I let this go for about 2 hours:
Awesome! Thanks Bobvan
Anytime, even though I use the "other" plugin I dont mind sharing advice thats how I got better