[Sidefx-houdini-list] Camera model

Neil Scholes neil at uvfilms.co.uk
Wed Nov 28 08:18:26 EST 2012


Well quite - i understand

im workign on shots with loads of movement, so the cg couldn't easily be 
re-used for something else - so on my particular project the lens is a 
fixed prime for each shot and  doesn't change  etc etc

but anyways it was just a thought


Neil Scholes

www.uvfilms.co.uk
+44 (0) 7977 456 197

On 28/11/12 11:35, Pablo Giménez wrote:
> 2012/11/28 Neil Scholes <neil at uvfilms.co.uk>
>
>> I would certainly love having a lens shader where you can import lens
>> distortion models from apps like 3DEqualiser etc.
>>
>> rather than having to render larger resolutions than needed and distorting
>> in nuke.
>>
> Well, this is  debatable.
> If you "bake" the lens distortion in the render then you are forced to
> rerender in case for  soem reason this lens dostortion option changes in
> the future, or changes for some shots.
> And this happens sometimes.
> Whereas rendering some extra pixels is always a good thing, just an
> overscan 1.1 will  allow you to add lens distortion in comp and also be
> sure that further comp manipulations like camera shakes will have enough
> pixels to work with.
> I think it is better to render a bunch of extra pixels as a rule rather
> than be forced to rerender a expensive render.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Neil Scholes
>>
>> +44(0) 7977 456 197
>> www.uvfilms.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2012, at 10:17, Jordi Bares Dominguez wrote:
>>
>>> The moment you enter into physically base rendering you will end up
>> wanting to use physically correct shaders and that ultimately will take you
>> to realise that is actually not that useful unless you get it all right
>> (physically correct camera and lights too) and also HDR balanced properly
>> (no grading)
>>> The cascade effect is huge and adapting to the approach is not easy plus
>> takes longer to render each frame but in my experience is more than
>> acceptable for the things you gain.
>>> Ultimately, like apple did when they designed the iPad, one single rule
>> forced a ton of changes everywhere (no pen, just your finger), with PBR is
>> the same and certain render engines are already there or thereabouts,
>> specially Maxwell, Vray and Mental Ray alongside all the other flavours
>> inspired by these.
>>> I really hope after this exchange of ideas SideFX see the value and put
>> together a physically correct ecosystem of tools for modern rendering.
>>> my 2 cents
>>> jb
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Nov 2012, at 10:04, Neil Scholes <neil at uvfilms.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting thoughts
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking that rendering linear light values in high dynamic range
>> is the real benefit  we already have, because after that all real camera
>> limitations such as abberation grain and iso can be faked in a more
>> painterly way in the comp which is surely quicker and easier ?
>>>> Also the issues of real world lenses and ISO etc well each camera, lens
>> is going to vary in accuracy even if the camera manufacturers offer a
>> template - rather like f stop vs T stop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neil Scholes
>>>>
>>>> +44(0) 7977 456 197
>>>> www.uvfilms.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Nov 2012, at 08:50, Jordi Bares wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would love that, including the camera transform matrix please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jb
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Nov 2012, at 00:32, Colin Doncaster <colin.doncaster at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sure!  I would assume it would be helpful if all of the camera
>> parameters ended up in metadata stored in the output image - this fits well
>> into the EXR camera info as it's meant to represent what exposure the data
>> represents with a good reference point from where to adjust it.
>>>>>> This would make a nice COP and/or MPlay addition where you can
>> quickly adjust the values and round robin them back to the scene camera.
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012-11-27, at 6:17 PM, Jordi Bares Dominguez <
>> jordibares at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't imagine anyone aspiring to get noise simulation baked in
>> their render and with the ever expanding electronic cameras configurations
>> and codecs this simply may be impossible but it may be useful to get a
>> metric for density of noise in the picture that we can feed into the comp.
>>>>>>> hope it makes sense
>>>>>>> jb
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>>>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>
>
>




More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list