Daz How to light like a pro?

[coffeeaddicted]

Here are different render same scene.
Turning Tricks

Maybe better angle?

 

[MissFortune]

30k vs 2500 is not a "minor" difference, we're talking about ferrari vs a golf car but if he cant render 20 or 30k he can get similar result with 15k sample aswell.

They're balanced for avarage graphic cards, not because they're the "best settings", if you have RTX4080 like mine, you should go atleast 20-25-30k samples.That reduces the noises on the picture aswell.

There's absolutely zero need for 30,000. I rarely go over 4000 at a significantly higher quality than most do. Blasting your rendering settings to their maximum isn't going to make a better render. It's just going to make it take longer.

Any noise that's still there at 3000 will still be there at 10000. It's why external denoisers exist.

 

[xell_]

There's absolutely zero need for 30,000. I rarely go over 4000 at a significantly higher quality than most do. Blasting your rendering settings to their maximum isn't going to make a better render. It's just going to make it take longer.

Any noise that's still there at 3000 will still be there at 10000. It's why external denoisers exist.

ok, you do your own way i'll do mine If you have a good PC and still use such a low sample rate, then that means you dont deserve that much power at all.

 

[Saint_RNG]

By the way, it's now impossible to make more than 25k samples.
Since the last update, Daz devs have removed the 'Parameters Settings...' option for sliders from Render Settings tab.
It just shows that 25k is already more than enough.

 

[xell_]

Saint_RNG

 

[no_more_name]

ok, you do your own way i'll do mine If you have a good PC and still use such a low sample rate, then that means you dont deserve that much power at all.

Maybe. Just maybe. You have no clue what you are doing.
Sometime I should just give up and call it a day.

 

[Saint_RNG]

View attachment 3577732
Saint_RNG

I didn't know about this.
Now why they removed the option to do it directly in the 'Render Settings' panel as for any other settings/morphs remains a mystery...

 

[xell_]

I didn't know about this.
Now why they removed the option to do it directly in the 'Render Settings' panel as for any other settings/morphs remains a mystery...

they probably dont know what they're doing, daz is not so user friendly when it comes to interface. Everything is overcomplicated and makes your life harder for some reason.

Maybe. Just maybe. You have no clue what you are doing.
Sometime I should just give up and call it a day.

you're right, my mistake. This is the last time I'll help anyone here, sorry about messing up your thread coffeeaddicted ,these people wants to win the conversation instead helping you and i'll let them.

 

[MissFortune]

If you have a good PC and still use such a low sample rate, then that means you dont deserve that much power at all.

And would you say your renders are worth 30k samples? Respectfully, I'd say no. You could get the exact same results with 8,000 or even 5,000.

You seem to be missing the point. Having high-end hardware isn't to max out all of your settings and spend more time waiting. It's to render faster, to get more content out while also retaining strong visual fidelity.

 

[no_more_name]

30k fucking samples.
For a render.
I can't. I just can't. (please kill me)

 

[jamdan]

View attachment 3577732
Saint_RNG

Daz will automatically stop the render when it reaches any of the max samples, max time or rendering quality % numbers.

If I had to guess, Daz quits your renders way before it reaches 30k samples or the max time you have set. The max time is so high that it's basically forever. And 30k samples will take ages too and is so high it'll never be reached, or even close to it, 99.99% of the time.

So you've basically set those two settings so high that'll they'll never be reached. Thus, you're only actually using the render quality % to determine when your renders stop. Which I assume you've set to 100%.


Bigger numbers does not equate to better renders. Just more time. Properly setting up your scenes will make your renders better, and quicker to render too. Hardly ever need to go even to 10k samples or past 95% render quality. The difference past those points is negligible at best.


Anyways, for the OP, look up photography/cinematography tutorials. And composition stuff too. IRL lighting/composition applies to 3D art too.

 

[MissFortune]

Anyways, for the OP, look up photography/cinematography tutorials. And composition stuff too. IRL lighting/composition applies to 3D art too.

100%.

The only thing I'd say to this is to follow some Daz-focused lighting tutorials first to understand how the lights themselves work at different settings/scales//lumens/etc. Once you've got that down, applying outside techniques becomes a lot easier to grasp and implement into Daz.

 

[xell_]

Daz will automatically stop the render when it reaches any of the max samples, max time or rendering quality % numbers.

If I had to guess, Daz quits your renders way before it reaches 30k samples or the max time you have set. The max time is so high that it's basically forever. And 30k samples will take ages too and is so high it'll never be reached, or even close to it, 99.99% of the time.

So you've basically set those two settings so high that'll they'll never be reached. Thus, you're only actually using the render quality % to determine when your renders stop. Which I assume you've set to 100%.


Bigger numbers does not equate to better renders. Just more time. Properly setting up your scenes will make your renders better, and quicker to render too. Hardly ever need to go even to 10k samples or past 95% render quality. The difference past those points is negligible at best.


Anyways, for the OP, look up photography/cinematography tutorials. And composition stuff too. IRL lighting/composition applies to 3D art too.

It takes 5-10min max and everybody knows that bigger samples meaning sharper and better images anything below than 15k looks garbage and you can spot the diff easily if you are doing this job for a while. You are talking about render coverged ratio not render quality. Just set that to %96-98 so the render wont take forever. If you had looked at my posts above, you wouldn't have had to make guesses and assumptions. If you are doing 4k pictures then you need to set max samples even higher so the picture will looks sharp and good enough. . I usually go 20-25k with my scenes and 30k iftheres only one figure and the results are pretty satisfying and totally worth the time to wait. Why would i accept lower quality just because its going to render 2 min less. If you cant afford 20-25k then go with 15k atleast you will get pretty good results far better than 2k or 4k samples. If you use more than 1-2 light then you need to reduce that number to 15k so it wont take long. In both ways i wouldnt go lower than 15k and neither i recommend. But in most cases 1 spotlight is enough if you are not doing an artwork image, i have never claimed myself an expert here but you MissFortune think you knows the best and only truth is your truth. Well i got news for you the world doesnt spin around you. Your way is faster but not better and far away from the best. Lemme guess you probably thinking iphone is better than android right?
"Bigger numbers does not equate to better renders" ok there are enough experts here im out. You guys can enjoy your poorly rendered pictures now

 

[Jumbi]

Bigger numbers does not equate to better renders. Just more time. Properly setting up your scenes will make your renders better, and quicker to render too. Hardly ever need to go even to 10k samples or past 95% render quality. The difference past those points is negligible at best.

I find the render quality settings difficult to understand at times. For that reason, I just control the render process with the time and the number of samples (iterations). For example, in one render I made not long ago, even when meeting 100% convergence ratio at a quality level of 1 (the default level), the render still cooked fast (with under 1,000 iterations) and had visible noise. Don't ask me why iRay behaved like that because I don't have an answer to that question, but it is what it is. It is just easier/better to control the cooking time with the time and max samples parameters.

 

[Turning Tricks]

Here are different render same scene.
Turning Tricks

Maybe better angle?

View attachment 3577180

I actually like your first composition. Although the overall lighting, I think, is a bit better here.

I'm rendering a big scene right now so I can't whip up an example, but I did a quick sketch on here to show what I meant about adding a spot to create a catchlight in her eyes.

Just put the spot about 3 meters away at about a 45 degree angle on the same height as her eyes. Make the spot light 4500K and 50,000 Lumens, 50 x 50 size and a Disc. Turn the render emitter off as well.

A 50,000 lumen spot at that distance won't really make much difference at all to your overall lighting, but it should reflect in her eyes. If you don't want to spend time on a complete re-render, just do a spot render of her face and mask that over top. If you pick the Spot render tool, go to the Tool Settings and pick New Window and you can also use SR to do quick tests and edits as you can see it progress.

The eyes are the windows to our souls, you know

 

[no_more_name]

For example, in one render I made not long ago, even when meeting 100% convergence ratio at a quality level of 1 (the default level)

Because it's a theorical standpoint.
100% convergence ratio doesn't mean 100% of your pixels have fully converged in a finite world (and never will, it deals with absolute). Not only you should never brute force to 100%, but it's also a complete misunderstanding of what it does.

That why understanding your environment is important. And yes it takes time.
And not only Daz. Cycle, Vray and any tracer will work on the same basis.

Yes, you can brute force yourself in any situation.
Yes, it's dumb almost 99% of the time.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

I actually like your first composition. Although the overall lighting, I think, is a bit better here.

I'm rendering a big scene right now so I can't whip up an example, but I did a quick sketch on here to show what I meant about adding a spot to create a catchlight in her eyes.

Just put the spot about 3 meters away at about a 45 degree angle on the same height as her eyes. Make the spot light 4500K and 50,000 Lumens, 50 x 50 size and a Disc. Turn the render emitter off as well.

A 50,000 lumen spot at that distance won't really make much difference at all to your overall lighting, but it should reflect in her eyes. If you don't want to spend time on a complete re-render, just do a spot render of her face and mask that over top. If you pick the Spot render tool, go to the Tool Settings and pick New Window and you can also use SR to do quick tests and edits as you can see it progress.

The eyes are the windows to our souls, you know

View attachment 3579346

I can not stress how difficult that is sometimes.
On the surface, it looks fine but there are still many issues.
The ring in the eye, missing. And yes, her skin looks kind of pale, no nuance.
I will apply your suggestions and check how it comes out.

I wonder if you can just attach lights to a character so you always would have the same lightning for a character. This seems for me one major problem. Each scene is different, even in the same scene.
Another one is, that i still don't get the "how to frame a scene" aspect. What is important. I usually tend to focus on the whole character but thats more for my own enjoyment.

For my imaginary game (but that just what i tell myself) is the character. This is a "just" released character. I love aged characters. Anything but pro characters. They are soooo expensive. I stole the skin though.
The eyes look kind of cartoonish.

When i did early renders i put more emphasis on the environment but i realized this isn't that important. as long as you know this is a kitchen or a living room, it's fine.

I did do photography when i was younger. The ones with film and i really want to get a SLR again. Even though lots of shots where crap but when you look back, they actually look nice. Overexposed can have sometimes a nice effect. Mistakes become art.

But yes, she doesn't speak, i am real. So i have to work on that.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

Oh, i forgot to ask.

How is everyone doing a scene anyway.
Do you use Iray cam setting it up? I do because of the time saving. I am getting incredibly frustrated if a render takes hours.
The only challenge i have with this is, that light shows up in a way it doesn't suppose to because of a cut ceiling or wall.
Do pro's just render the whole scene intact?

 

[Jumbi]

I wonder if you can just attach lights to a character so you always would have the same lightning for a character. This seems for me one major problem. Each scene is different, even in the same scene.

You can make groups out of different nodes in your scene pane, for instance. I sometimes grouped my characters together with the scene lights and the camera. After that, translating or rotating the group in the viewport will affect all elements included in the group the same way.

 

[coffeeaddicted]

A new attempt. This one took longer to render. It went beyond 3000 iterations.
Light is a little changed and at the back i put a plane and made it to a mirror so it reflects light.
Looks ok to me.
Character has an OOT hair that actually works. Skin reflects a little as well.