infiniview
![]() |
I have imported a couple of HDRI images into my FF.
And I was wondering if there are any plans to have a HDRI image library somewhere on the site or perhaps there already is one and I have missed it. In just playing around with this function my images were just a couple I had on my HD, so not actually true HDRI images yet they still work to produce interesting effects. So I am also in the process of learning my camera better to adjust exposures correctly for capturing the source images for creating true HDRI images, and I thought it would be cool if we shared our output of them. Has anyone else been making their own HDRI images? at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 25, 2007 9:46 pm | ||||||
infiniview
![]() |
For people reading this that do not know what I am talking about.
It is the image choice applied to the chrome ball in the lighting section. At least on my comp when I import an image I take off for a while or go to bed as it seems to take around 4 hours to load. But the idea is that the human eye can react to light levels far beyond what can be presented traditionally on a computer monitor. HDRI i.e High Dynamic Range Imaging, is a method of getting around this limitation. So as I understand it you capture multiple exposures of the same image scene and then run these through a program that blends them in just the right way to give you a usable HDR image. From what I have read you want at least 3 images of the same scene. And you want everything to remain the same as possible except for your camera exposure. And it is reccomended that you do not use the automatic exposure change settings but to change them manually by steps of at least one EV value. I was recently looking at some HDRI results in this particular case from within Bryce and the artist reported that the image took 5 hours to render and the result was some minor shadow depth. In contrast the great thing about FF it appears is that the wait time is in loading the image rather than in rendering it. This is me just sharing what I recently learned. Please feel free to discuss, correct or add to this thread. ![]() at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 25, 2007 10:00 pm | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
infiniview,
you can make your own lighting environments fairly easily. i've written this up in another thread and i got the information from, i think it was vladimir and onyxmaster. so, i simply condensed the material. as to actual hdri images, that's basically bracketing by exposure and then pulling the luminance values of one or more of images for use in the others... i think. that may be over-simplifying it, though. and no, i havent done any of this, at least not in the way you describe it. you can somewhat fake hdri, however, using only a single image, but it's a bit trickier and involves offsets and channels and some adjustment layers. in fact, it's somewhat similar to what CF was doing with anaglphs, only you do it for lighting to get a more dynamic lighting effect. i'm not quite sure what you mean by an hdri image library. you want to upload finished hdri's into this library or the base images needed to make them, or hdri environments for the surface lighting environment? If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: March 26, 2007 2:26 pm | ||||||
infiniview
![]() |
On the library idea since we can import our own hdri images in the format of .exr or .pfm files into FF in order to use them in our lighting choices, I just thought that if people are making their own then we could share them in the same way we are sharing
filter submissions. And yes hdri as I understand it is combining those values into a single image. And yes I mean't the finished images they could be in either the exr or the pfm format and be ready to import into FF for anyone with the patience. ![]() On your last paragraph I got the first two references but the third "hdri environments for the surface lighting environment"? Not quite sure what your referring to on that reference. Side note; at first I had found a free utility for converting jpegs into exr's. Which is how I experimented with it the first time. However I just checked and sure enough CS 2 will convert jpeg and bmp formats into pfm format which can be imported into FF. And like I mentioned in my above post I have not done a true hdri image yet. For my experiment I just converted a couple of normal jpegs that I had already. And they actually do work! They imported and appear on my lighting list. Only they are much darker than the others as true hdri's have much greater exposure levels in them. One of them is a picture of the head of the terminator robot after the skin has been burned off. And it yields some interesting metal shape reflections directly onto the image being rendered in FF. for example this is a base image for the next example, it is just a wall with a couple of iterations of the aqua button. ![]() This one is the same image with the 'bridge' hdri lighting choice in advanced metalizer with all color desaturated. ![]() And this one is with the non true hdri image of T2 from my HD with all the same settings. ![]() So as you can see it does not have to actually be an hdri image to get differing results, however actual hdri images are just that much more powerful. So I was just wondering if anyone else is playing around with this, and/or creating any of their own finished true hdri images. at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 28, 2007 4:24 am | ||||||
infiniview
![]() |
Ok I did a search of the past hdri posts, should have done that first,lol.
It looks like you had the same idea. Would they really be too large? I also did not see the option in CS 2 for conversion to exr, but I did see the link for it as a plug in. at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 28, 2007 4:26 am | ||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
File > Automate > Merge to HDR File > Save As > OpenEXR (available in 32-bit mode only) |
|||||
Posted: March 28, 2007 6:32 am | ||||||
infiniview
![]() |
Oh Wow cool!
Thanks Vlad! ![]() at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 28, 2007 8:02 am | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
sorry, that shld have been simply 'hdri environments' or 'lighting environment'. 'church', 'bridge' and those are what i was trying to say. as for:
and the simplest way to get an .exr for import into FF is to simply manually change the file extension of a .jpg. simply erase the '.jpg' and replace it with '.exr', without the quotes, of course. just be prepared to have photoshop or paint shop pro choke on the now altered file shld you happen to try to load it up in one of those programs. and, going back to your original question/request, yes, i've already suggested that it would be good to have a central repository here on the FF site, like the standard filter library, for FF environments. but, i also see no reason why some of us couldnt do this also. i'd just have to put my web server back up to do it, for example... and get ftp capability. i'm not a very good web jockey. ![]() If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: March 28, 2007 8:20 am | ||||||
infiniview
![]() |
Oh no I was not proposing loading that large of images into FF.
I was referring to the earlier post of yours that the images would be too large to put on this site, or is that what you mean't? at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 29, 2007 10:59 am | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
i wasnt either. for the library, i meant using the finished environment files. i would have just posted them in the forums, but they are well over the 250k limit.
If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: March 29, 2007 2:17 pm | ||||||
ssamm |
Because of this thread, I made my first .ffenv file (i.e. I used "Import HDRI" for the first time). This is pretty cool, but it does take a lot of computer processing time to make.
So I (also) think it would be very cool if there was a repository some place online where we could share these files. It could save people a lot of time if they wanted to explore this area more. (Maybe the FF library should only accept filters that use presets that use only those 7 default environments, though...) |
|||||
Posted: March 29, 2007 7:37 pm | ||||||
infiniview
![]() |
ok so the .ffenv file is the format it becomes after being imported into FF.
So I it must be much faster to place one of these like if I got one from you and dl'ed into mine. Ok so here is a dumb question, an aspect I have not looked at yet, is I see people posting filter files right here in the forums. How is that done? at least 90 percent of all sensation is texture, even beyond the visual, with elements of noise, tone, gradients, interval and degree.
|
|||||
Posted: March 30, 2007 4:27 am | ||||||
Crapadilla
![]() |
Way it is already.
You can attach a file to your post. --- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;) |
|||||
Posted: March 30, 2007 5:24 am | ||||||
ssamm |
You can post a filter using the "Attach a file:" option. (It's right under the box you type in to make posts here.)
If you can't find your filter file with the "Browse..." button, then you can open the filter in FF and use the "Filter->Locate File" function (or just press Ctrl+L) and it will open a window with your filter highlighted in it's folder. (And towards the top of the window, you can see it's address.) Edit: Oops, it looks like Crapadilla beat me to the punchline. |
|||||
Posted: March 30, 2007 5:25 am | ||||||
Crapadilla
![]() |
I'd also put in my vote for a HDRI repository. I'd probably be the first to upload some of Paul Debevec's free hdri environments converted to ffenv format.
![]() --- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;) |
|||||
Posted: March 30, 2007 5:27 am | ||||||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
I think this can be organized via the wiki (we're working on it).
|
|||||
Posted: March 30, 2007 8:21 am | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
that would be cool, vlad!
If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: March 30, 2007 2:07 pm | ||||||
jffe |
Well, I got it (renaming a .jpg as .exr and importing it as an HDRI) to work, but it uhh, sucked ha-ha. Can we maybe get a thread/sticky going about where to get good HDRI files, be they free or payware ? I've seen a few around online, and am interested in blowing a few bucks on some good ones in the near future, so it would be cool for all of us (I can't be the only one wanting to get some new lights eh), if we could maybe get a list going with comments from those who have used them.
![]() jffe Added : How the heck can I open .hdr files for lighting with FF ? ![]() Filter Forger |
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 1:51 am | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
actually, guys, we could post them here. but we'd have to post the original images BEFORE FF converts them to hdri's. we could just post the .jpgs that we felt made good hdri's and share them that way. each would then have to render them through the import option in FF themselves, but it would be an easy way to get them to each other.
one suggestion i'll make to start here is, keep your brightest areas fairly small and keep them few and far between. i seem to get better results when i've only got one smallish bright area in the import. but, i've really only done about a half a dozen, so the data on that is still ongoing. and jffe, if i'm understanding your question correctly, the hdri's are the lighting environments you use in surface filters, not simple filters. it's those sphere's that move laterally, like 'forest', 'church', 'day', 'night' and so on. when you import your .exr into FF, it converts it into one of those, only based on your image and with the name you assign to it at the time of the import. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 2:18 am | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
Well, posting final HDRIs are good also, since you will save a lot of time for people importing HDRI images
![]() |
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 3:17 am | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
The .ffenv files from the "My Environments" folder are fully transferable between different copies of Filter Forge, so there's no reason to publish only original files.
|
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 3:19 am | ||||||
jffe |
----I did that with a couple of .jpgs, and they sucked ha-ha. My question was about .hdr files, there are some free ones online, but I couldn't just change the filename to .exr and import them like with .jpgs. How can I used a .hdr file with FF like that ? ![]() jffe Filter Forger |
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 3:20 am | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
ah, for that i'm not sure, jffe. one of the other guys had a program that did some of that. i've only done the .jpg to .exr and import thing.
and onyx, yes, but i was talking about currently, posting them here in the forums, since the final files are so large. there's no way they would fit. but, a 200 x 200 .jpg or even larger, wouldnt be a problem. even the small ffexr files are 1 to 3 megs or so. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 3:31 am | ||||||
jffe |
O.k. Kraellin, I guess I thought .hdr files would open/convert as easily, since they should be closer to the standard than just a .jpg is already, but then, I know basically nothing about all that. So FF team, what's up with .hdr files, and how can they be used for lighting in Filter Forge then ?
![]() jffe Filter Forger |
|||||
Posted: September 2, 2007 2:22 pm | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
Unfortunately, HDR Radiance files (.hdr) are not supported directly, but you can convert it to the supported PFM format, along with the spherical->latitude/longitude conversion (if needed) with the free HDRShop utility (you can get it at http://gl.ict.usc.edu/HDRShop/download/). It saves PFM files vertically flipped, so be sure to flip images before saving. Also, if you own Adobe Photoshop CS2 or better, you can open .hdr image directly and save it to PFM format. When using Photoshop, you can also save as OpenEXR format, but PFM does not support compression so you won't accidentially save it to compressed OpenEXR losing some precision
![]() HDR Radiance format (a limited subset involving RGB data only) might be supported in one of the future versions of Filter Forge. |
|||||
Posted: September 3, 2007 10:00 am | ||||||
StevieJ
![]() |
Look forward to it ![]() Steve
"Buzzards gotta eat...same as worms..." - Clint :) |
|||||
Posted: September 3, 2007 11:48 am | ||||||
jffe |
I have another question about HDRI lighting. I have imported a couple of small (200 X 400 pixel I believe) .exr lighting files, and used them in FF. My question is, what is the relationship between size of the .exr file, and the quality, when rendering output .jpgs that are much much larger, say for instance a 2400 X 2400 render, using a 200 X 400 .exr lighting file ? Should it ideally be a 1 to 1 ratio, like use a 2400 X 2400 .exr lighting file with 2400 X 2400 renders for full/maximum quality, or how does that work in the simplest terms (and numbers/ratios) possible ? Thanks.
![]() jffe Filter Forger |
|||||
Posted: September 19, 2007 7:06 pm | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
Well, to start I want to note say that if you're importing correctly formatted HDRI images (latitude-longitude format), the source HDRI aspect ratio should be 2:1 (pretty obvious, 360 degrees latitude, 180 degrees longitude, that's 2:1).
And for output precision -- it varies, and varies a lot. If you have a noisy surface, have high reflection blur set or crank the reflection almost to zero, you can get away with images with a lot lower resolution than the target image (4x smaller on both axis easily, up to 10x and even more if you're willing to sacrifice some quality). On the other hand, smooth, highly reflective surfaces with reflection blur close to zero may require environment map resolution LARGER than the target image (2x at a minimum, 4x even better). I'm not going to dive into the reasons for this -- if you would like to know I recommend you to google/wikipedia for "environment mapping" or "reflection mapping". |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 1:04 pm | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
onyx, that's good to know. seems i've been doing mine backwards, going 1:2 rather than 2:1. lol. that's just about par for me.
and i had wondered, in the past, about jffe's question also. i've gotten a lot of my custom environments up only to find that it just seemed to color an image one tint but not a lot of varied lighting. so, it's been a bit of a mystery to me. not sure i understand the lattitude/longitude explanation. is that because you can move the sphere completely around laterally but not vertically? if so, that would make some sense. and isnt that backwards? wouldnt it be 360 longitude and 180 lattitude? if it's not then i'm missing something here. and if i am missing something here, would that make it better if your import images were 400 x 200 rather than 200 x 400? If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 2:06 pm | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
400x200 will result in better quality distribution along the surface.
And about longitude and latitude -- IIRC in case of a planet it's 360 latitude (along the equator) and 180 longitude (along the meridians). In any case, the 2:1 is the proper aspect ratio for input images, trust me ![]() Also, keep in mind that since the image is a ... well, let's call it projection of a sphere surface, it's completely nonlinear. If you place a round dot with radius 10 with center at 50;50 or 150;50 on a 200x100 image, it will end up as a proper circular "light source". On the other hand, if you place it at 75, 75 for example, it will get distorted in a final lighting environment, since it will be projected on a sphere with a distortion. The safest zones to place artificial lighting are W/4;H/2 and W*3/4;H/2 coordinates if W is width and H is height (W/H should be equal to 2 as I mentioned before). |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 2:57 pm | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
yes, you have your definitions of lattitude and longitude correct, but remember, when you change lattitudes, you would be going north to south, not east to west and vice versa with longitudes. never mind, it always confuses me.
ok, i can follow 400 x 200 ![]() and yes, i do understand you're mapping on a sphere and i'm guessing that's part of why it takes so long to render an .exr into an FF environment. ah, i hadnt considered the warping of light sources on the sphere. i'll bear that in mind the next one i do. so, lighting at the 'equater' is going to warp less. cool ![]() one other question on this... i've sort of noticed that the central point of the sphere, wherever you've got it rotated to at the moment, seems to have the most influence across the whole image when applied. is that normal or have i just been making my environments wrong? it seems to be a sort of gradient effect 'shining' outward from that central point (or maybe the central longitudinal line) and that secondary bright spots and colors NOT in the center, have very little influence, if any when applied to the image. is this true, mostly, or would this just be due to my having the wrong aspect ratios on my .exr's before import? If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 3:19 pm | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
It depends on the surface shape. Imagine the front face of the sphere is what you see in a metal polished ball you keep in your hands right before your eyes (also imagine that you do not see yourself
![]() Try increasing surface height to create "deep canyons" -- this will lead to wider area of reflected image affecting the result (albeit fading into black due to the shading). The sharper the surface spikes, the larger area of the sphere is used, getting close to 100% as canyon walls become vertical (you won't see them when they get 100% vertical though). P.S. HDRI import can be made faster if you're okay with the "reflection blur" giving more or less correct results only near min and max values. I'm not sure it will make in any FF release, but I can think of a dropdown box in the dialog with "Reflection Blur Quality" with Low/Med/High qualities, with Low being about 9x faster to import than High (the current default) ![]() |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 4:10 pm | ||||||
onyXMaster
Posts: 350 |
P.P.S. you'll need to convince Vlad you really need that "quick import" feature though
![]() |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 4:11 pm | ||||||
Kraellin
![]() |
ok, i can see that. makes perfect sense. i'll have to look at mine again and study a bit more and redo some of my imports, since i think i had some of them backwards. and, i'm really not worried about faster with the imports. i dont do that many and i can always just set it up to run before i go to bed. i've mostly only done about a max of 400 x 400 so far and that doesnt take more than about 20 or 30 minutes, if i remember correctly. and since most of the images i'm currently doing are only at the 600 x 600 or so size, it hasnt been that important to have a higher resolution environment. but, i may try something like a 1200 x 600 import just to test it. thanks, onyx, this has been helpful ![]() If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig |
|||||
Posted: September 20, 2007 4:21 pm |
Filter Forge has a thriving, vibrant, knowledgeable user community. Feel free to join us and have fun!
33,712 Registered Users
+19 new in 30 days!
153,534 Posts
+31 new in 30 days!
15,348 Topics
+72 new in year!
27 unregistered users.