UberEnvironment2 and HDRI question

Steven-V

Hey there, folks.

I am just starting to play around with HDRI and using that to light a scene with UE2. Everything works great when I load a UE2 sphere into the scene, and then, with the sphere selected, double-click on an HDR set like kitchen or park or what have you. The image loads onto the sphere, and the lighting works fine.

So I found some other free HDR images that I thought I would try using. I used the script to convert them from HDR to TIF. No problem there. But when I tried to load them onto a UE2 sphere... nothing happens. I do this by selecting the Color channel under "Light" in parameters, and browsing to the .tif file. When I do that, the sphere stays white. Now, I haven't really done a lot of rotating of the sphere to see if the HDR image is in fact lighting the scene -- because, well, if the sphere stays white, I can't see what I'm rotating. But it seems on a couple of quick renders to just be the flat white sphere.

I feel like I must be missing a step, but I can't figure out what. Can someone point me to a help file or tutorial that would show me how to get my custom HDR images to actually show up on the UE2 sphere?

Thanks!

Khory

So I found some other free HDR images that I thought I would try using. I used the script to convert them from HDR to TIF. No problem there. But when I tried to load them onto a UE2 sphere… nothing happens. I do this by selecting the Color channel under “Light” in parameters, and browsing to the .tif file. When I do that, the sphere stays white. Now, I haven’t really done a lot of rotating of the sphere to see if the HDR image is in fact lighting the scene—because, well, if the sphere stays white, I can’t see what I’m rotating. But it seems on a couple of quick renders to just be the flat white sphere.

The light and the sphere are two different things. Go to surfaces and select the sphere there and apply the .TIF (Pretty sure daz can use them now). If for some reason your going to have the sphere visible in the scene then apply the texture to ambient as well and set the ambient to at least 100 (you may need to turn off the limit/lock on ambient and take it even higher).

Steven-V

Ah, OK. I did not realize they were two different things. Thanks.

Khory

I don't think it is one of those things that is initially obvious to anyone when they first start working with them.

Steven-V

Another question.

Using the HDRI lights is quite nice overall, but the shadows are always very soft. Yes, I know that is the purpose. But I was wondering if there is any way to firm up the shadow edges beyond the highest res setting in the UE sphere?

Khory

Is this with soft shadows or directional shadows? Also, in most situations you can add an extra light to give you those sharp shadows. An example would be a distance slight in an outdoor scene that was placed to represent the sun.

Steven-V

I have been using Occlusion w/Directional.

Let me provide an example. I have this patriotic stars-and-stripes heroine for a webcomic I am working on. Since she is a patriotic character, I am working on an image of her flying over Washington D.C. I found a nice daytime overhead shot in the public domain, and I'm trying to match the lighting to it. But the scene has some fairly strong shadows, which I don't seem to be able to get using HDRI lighting in UE2. Furthermore, I have noticed that a lot of the detail seems to "wash out" with UE2. Now, I know this is affected by both the intensity of the light and the gamma, and I have tried playing around with it. But I have to say, just using the default DAZ lights that everyone seems to think are so inferior, I have not had to play this much.

Here are two shots. In the first example, we have DAZ3D default distant lights. I used a simple 3 point setup. The intensity was something like 85% Key, 42% Fill, 100% Back. Key was placed to mimic the angle of the sun in the background shot behind the character. Notice some factors here. First, the character's not muscular, but still, her linea alba and other ab muscles are visible through her G2 suit. This is proper for superhero characters - their muscles, if any, should be visible through their costume. Second, the intensity of the shadows is a reasonable match to the background. Third, her skirt, which is the Kiriko one that I just recolored blue and white, looks silky and shiny, which is how that skirt comes "out of the box." And finally, the gloves and boots look shiny, as they should, because they came out of the box like that (think shiny, highly polished leather). Using standard beginners' 3-point-light techniques, I was able to quickly and easily match the background image.

The second shot is with UE2 using the "park" HDR, which may not be the best, but it works better than the city one I found somewhere else online (that one has too much blue in it and screws up the colors, making it a poor match for the DC background image). I rotated the HDR image so the sun in the shot was coming from the same exact spot as the Key Light in the 3-point DAZ light setup above. Notice that all the things I mentioned above are reversed. The ab muscles are less clear. The shadows are too faint compared to the background image, which makes the figure blatantly mis-match the background. The skirt looks flat and textureless (I did not change anything but the lighting in this scene, so the texture should not have changed). And the gloves and boots look flat, no longer like shiny polished leather.

Now, I can see that there are some advantages to the HDR, because it handles indirect, bounce, etc style lighting without needing multiple lights. And I am sure I'd have achieved a better result using the DAZ lights if I had used the 7-point system (or 6, since I did not need a background light in this case), with bounce, ambient, etc, light sources. But my point here is that I find the second, HDR lighted character, to look very flat... more like a cartoon than a 3D character. And I think the overly-soft shadows are part of the problem.

So is it the case that when using UE2, you always have to use a standard DAZ3D light source like a distant or spot light? Or is there some way using area lights and/or UE2 that you can get sharper shadows and a more 3D look to the figure?

Khory

The second shot is with UE2 using the "park" HDR, which may not be the best,
but it works better than the city one I found somewhere else online (that
one has too much blue in it and screws up the colors, making it a poor match
for the DC background image).

You can always lower the saturation setting so that there is not too much color present. I think that most of the time that is a good plan as it is very rare that we see the environment strongly colored by the reflected/ambient light.

I rotated the HDR image so the sun in the shot
was coming from the same exact spot as the Key Light in the 3-point DAZ
light setup above. Notice that all the things I mentioned above are
reversed. The ab muscles are less clear. The shadows are too faint compared
to the background image, which makes the figure blatantly mis-match the
background.

Yes, you do need to add a distant light to be the sun and cast strong directional shadows. AO is really a representation of where ambient light would be more/less strong on the figure. Even directional shadows will not be as strong without a real light source in the scene.

The skirt looks flat and textureless (I did not change anything
but the lighting in this scene, so the texture should not have changed). And
the gloves and boots look flat, no longer like shiny polished leather.

Adding a sun/distance light may bring out your spectacular enough. If not you can add a specular only light to pop it even more. It really depends on what strengths you end up with for the uberlight and the directional light. It is very unlikely that they will both be full strength by the way.

But my point here is that I find the second, HDR lighted character, to look very flat... more like a
cartoon than a 3D character. And I think the overly-soft shadows are part of
the problem.

Without a good directional sun the lighting your using is a bit more like a bright day when the sun has dipped behind a light cloud. Still plenty of reflected light but no clear sun to cast shadows.

Steven-V

Thanks for the help.

The overwhelming reaction most people on this forum seem to have to the default DAZ lights is, as far as I can tell, best summed up by "don't use them," so I was trying to do without them. But they seem to be the only way to get moderate to strong shadows, which are sometimes called for.

I do see the advantages of Uber Area and UE lighting in the sense that you can often get good results with fewer lights, and much softer pictures. But both also seem to "wash out" the scene unless I also use the DAZ default lights -- at least when I use them. I feel like I've seen some amazing results using UE and Uber Area from other people, but I've never been able to get these lights to work as well as others.

Khory

I doubt seriously if most people ever looked at all the capabilities of the lights included with studio to be honest. They don't look at the settings options beyond turning on shadows.

I have to say it sounds like you still want to think of the UE2 lights and the regular lights in studio as either or which could not be further from the case. In the real world your going to find very few situations where there is no directional light anywhere around.

Washed out just means that the lights are too high and you need to turn one or both down.

Szark

I will add that UE2 doesn't need HDRI's to be converted "anymore". DS can use native HDRI for both the light and Sphere http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/50576/ and yes UE2 isn't that good in providing good directional shadows. I always use IDL with Soft Shadows and use an additional light source for the main directional shadows.

Steven-V

Khory said:

Washed out just means that the lights are too high and you need to turn one or both down.

Well, I tried turning them down but then the character looked too dark for the background scene I was trying to match. That DC shot is quite bright -- so much so that the white rooftops are just this side of being over-exposed at the bottom of the shot.

In the shot above, the light was at 68%. I could've turned it down more, which might reduce the "washed out" look from the UE2 light, but then the character would have looked too dark for the shot. Even at 20% intensity, the specularity of the materials and skin is not showing up with UE but it is with Distant light, and the figure looks "flatter" to me than under the DAZ lights.

And I don't consider it either/or, but I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit of using it when, at least to my eyes, I can get equivalent results using 3-point lighting with maybe a bounce light from below.... and the results look more defined and 3-dimensional, again, to my eyes.

Khory

I think the big variable is skin tone quality. In most cases skin tone tends to look better with at least some AO. Her skin looks pretty flat in both renders so I am suspecting that the surfaces on her skin could use some work no matter what you choose to do. If the boots are going too hot those could be adjusted as well. Since your doing a composite shot you might consider doing the best render of her with proper shadowing and then further adjusting the brightness of the image in post work to match the final background.

One other thing to consider would be how realistic a 3 point light set up is for an exterior. For example, you wouldn't get a rim highlight on her hair unless the sun was behind her.

Herald of Fire

One important thing to note with UE2 is that it doesn't handle specular lighting. You'll either want a dedicated specular light source or other light to handle the shine.

Steven-V

Khory said:

I think the big variable is skin tone quality. In most cases skin tone tends to look better with at least some AO. Her skin looks pretty flat in both renders so I am suspecting that the surfaces on her skin could use some work no matter what you choose to do.

Well, her skin is using the SSS version (it's FW Cassie), but you're right, I have noticed that whether I use the SSS version or not, I'm not seeming to get much subsurface scattering regardless. I have just been using the out-of-the-box defaults for that skin model, and have not played with that yet.

Steven-V

Regarding the skin of the figure I am using... here are some other tests. First one is just a 3 point light setup using standard DAZ spotlights. The second is a Key and Backlight with a softbox HDRI UE2 light as the "fill" (instead of a directional fill). Key and Back Lights are at 80% intensity in both cases. Fill is at 40% in the 3-point setup. Soft Box is at 100% intensity. There is a separate background light for the background (which is irrelevant but I mention it for completeness). I know that the lights are not set up in the perfect position, but I think this gives a good view of the skin texture. I agree that the skin still looks a little "flat" here (although better in than in the above shot).

I'll be honest, I'm kind of at sea here. There are just so many variables, any one of which might be the key, or maybe 3 or 4 in combination. I count 27 possible variables on the skin alone (and that may not be an accurate estimate -- I did not count ones that I think, intuitively, probably have no effect, but if I am wrong there are way more). The number of possible combinations of slider moves that could be needed to produce the effect I want is staggering.

On top of that, given how lighting works, I could be hitting on the right SSS combination of settings, but never see it, if I don't also have the right lighting setup. And even if I got the lighting and SSS setup right, I might not see any improvement if the render settings are wrong.

Without knowing which ones are the likely culprits, I am just taking shots in the dark, hitting render, and trying to see what will happen. It's not very efficient and with the # of possible combinations of factors that could be involved (27 SSS variables, 14 UE2 light variables, 9 render setting variables by my count, which is 50 items taken 3 at a time, or conservatively 19,600 possible combinations, potentially only ONE of which is the "right one"). I suspect one or two of the settings in each category have the highest probability of improving the skin's look, but as I have no idea which ones they are, I'm not sure which variables/dials to investigate first.

Khory

My guess would actually be that she needed a bit stronger specularity no matter which lighting you use. Not loads, but enough to give her a bit more shine where the light is hitting her.

Steven-V

Which specularity, regular or spec 2?

Right now, Secularity is set to:
Spec gloss, 65%; Noise 20.00; Noise str 0%; Spec Strength 100%; Glossiness 65%, Multiply through Opacity-off

Specularity2 is set to:
Gloss 85%; Spec 2 Str 0%

It appears some of these things are canceling each other out. For instance, noise is 20 but noise strength is 0%, so I would not be shocked to learn that the 20 is multiplied by 0 and not being applied. But I have no idea if upping the noise will have the desired effect. There are a three glossinesses as well - Specular Glossiness and just plain Glossiness (under specular) and then Glossiness under specular 2. Although the Spec 2 one is set to str 0%, which again makes me suspect it is being canceled.

So when one says "stronger specularity," which setting is being referenced? Spec 1 or 2? Glossiness? Noise? Strength of noise? Turn on Multiply through opacity?

Then there is the SSS stuff... IoR 1.3, Shading Rate 16.0, Sshading scale 0.10. And this too has some 0s that might be canceling things out... Subsurf on-off 0.00 (does that set it to on, or off? I assume off... but maybe not). Subsurf strength - 0.0%. Again... seems like it is turning it off. So do I need to turn these on too? Raise them? Leave hem as is?

My issue here is that all of these things are probably interacting with each other, and changing one might not have any effect if I don't also change the other. But I have no easy way of knowing which is which. Most of the documentation on this stuff is either entirely lacking or else seems to assume that one already knows a good deal about what the settings will do... and right now I don't.

Khory

Right now, Secularity is set to:
Spec gloss, 65%; Noise 20.00; Noise str 0%; Spec Strength 100%; Glossiness 65%, Multiply through Opacity-off

I would guess that there is also a specularity strength map stuck in the color slot for some reason (most character makers do that for some unknown reason) and that the color is some version of blue or greenish gray. The noise is a setting to help break up specularity when there is no map so it not being on is no big deal. My first suggestion is to lighten up that specularity color somewhat.

Specularity2 is set to:
Gloss 85%; Spec 2 Str 0%

Since this is not used at all and thus no maps then I would just ignore that one for now. It would help add a sublte shine on top of the color of the other one if it were used but till your use to working with surfaces it may be to futzy to mess with yet.

So when one says “stronger specularity,” which setting is being referenced? Spec 1 or 2? Glossiness? Noise? Strength of noise? Turn on Multiply through opacity?

Then there is the SSS stuff… IoR 1.3, Shading Rate 16.0, Sshading scale 0.10. And this too has some 0s that might be canceling things out… Subsurf on-off 0.00 (does that set it to on, or off? I assume off… but maybe not). Subsurf strength - 0.0%. Again… seems like it is turning it off. So do I need to turn these on too? Raise them? Leave hem as is?

With SSS off your getting none of its benefits. The link to the information about the shader is on this page: http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/read_me/index/16324/start. One thing to note is once your adding the subsurface you may need to further up the specularity because the sss can dim it somewhat.

Steven-V

Yes, the specularity is a bluish purple, you are correct about that. I will try to lighten it up some.

It seems rather strange to me that applying the SSS surface would default to setting SSS to off... it seems odd that I would ask the system for SSS but want it off.

Thanks for all your help. I will keep playing with.

Khory

She is not one I have sadly, but I did look her up in the shop. The materials your applying are from the SSS set and not the other set correct? It looks like she has ordinary presets (not sure who uses those any more) a set of studio sss presets and then some poser presets that are irrelevant here. Be sure that your using the set that is for SSS.. and once the SSS is turned on be sure that ALL the lights in the scene have shadow turned on or make sure that any surfaces inside her mouth have sss turned off.

Steven-V

Yes, I have applied the SSS set, not the default set. With the default set, I don't think the SSS options are even present (though I'm not sure if I have event tried them).

I've played around with it. Turned the Specular Glossiness (both) to 80%, and lightened up the Spec color from dark purple to a pale lavendar. I turned SSS on and set it to 10%. I think the result is looking better.

I don't usually turn on shadows for ALL the lights (especially things like fill lights when I use them) so rather than have to remember to always do that, I will set the interior mouth to SSS off. I don't think it matters in this scene since her mouth is closed (or at least, I don't see any issues in the mouth area). Here are two shots with those settings, distant and close-up. Definitely better than before.

Thanks again for your help.

Khory

Yes, I have applied the SSS set, not the default set. With the default set, I don’t think the SSS options are even present (though I’m not sure if I have event tried them).

Well.. urg.. It shoud have sss turned on and have the sss and diffuse properly adjusted for a good render. Not sure what to tell you about that.

I’ve played around with it. Turned the Specular Glossiness (both) to 80%, and lightened up the Spec color from dark purple to a pale lavendar. I turned SSS on and set it to 10%. I think the result is looking better.

Yes it does

I don’t usually turn on shadows for ALL the lights (especially things like fill lights when I use them) so rather than have to remember to always do that, I will set the interior mouth to SSS off. I don’t think it matters in this scene since her mouth is closed (or at least, I don’t see any issues in the mouth area). Here are two shots with those settings, distant and close-up. Definitely better than before.

With SSS even if the mouth is closed there will be some light bouncing around under her skin without shadows and you will get a charming effect called "glow mouth". You can always adjust down the strength of the shadows but your going to need those shadows with SSS.

Steven-V

From what I can see, certain specific surfaces do not seem to have SSS. There is a global "skin" feature that happily can be adjusted in one place and affects most of the character, and that has SSS. If I want to individualize, I can go into face or torso and individually change the SSS setting to be different from the global skin setting. But certain parts of the character like the inside of the mouth and the tear ducts and such do not have SSS options. So I suspect that FWArt probably did that on purpose. Certainly, I do not see "glow mouth" in this picture, and the backlight had shadows off in the shot.

I noticed something that I had not noticed before. There are 7 or 8 "templates" available in the surfaces tab, which I had no idea what they did -- but on looking, it seems that they are templates for different specular/SSS settings, one of which (template 2, I think) is actually very close to how I had set things manually using your advice. I'm not sure how one would apply the templates, but I suspect that FWArt put them there for maximum freedom, and I now feel pretty stupid for not noticing them before. I just assumed using the SSS option would auto-set things, as it has done for me with several other, non-FW, characters. But each author has his own style, I guess.

Khory

If I want to individualize, I can go into face or torso and individually change the SSS setting to be different from the global skin setting.

To a point yes. Some of the effects will be so subtle you may not notice them.

There are 7 or 8 “templates”

Templates refer to the uv maps used to layout the texture images. For the most part human characters use the same number of templates and in some cases they will look very much alike.