just want to clarify,yafaray is producing correct lighting,the only problem is emitter looks dimmer.
hi David
Phisically correct lighting is only an objective parameter IMO when we measure it in surface materials, not in the camera plane or light source properties. The basic premise is that objects reflects lights according to phisically based laws and no object can reflect more light than it gets, adding all components (diffuse+specular+SSS) and substracting absorpted light. I think the best source of information for that is the PBRT book.
What the camera is seeing or what correct light power settings should we use, has nothing to do with surface properties IMHO. A camera in YafaRay only simulates tone mapping (linear, s-type, etc) so it is a subjective parameter to the user needs, and light source power is only in fact and “exposure” setting, so it is also subjective as well. More light power meas more “scene exposure”. That a light type sheds more light in YafaRay than in other programs basically means nothing but that both programs don’t have compatible “exposure” values. For instance, that for the same exposure in Yafaray we would need light power = 3 instead of 1 like in another engine. I have tried HDRI in YafaRay and in Marmoset and they produce the same results BTW.
However, it is important that there exist a correlation between background and area light source exposure. For instance, certain value in a light source power setting should be seen the same in a mesh light than in a hdri background, and should produce the very same scene exposure. For instance, an objective enviroment to try this is an HDRI background with only an area as a light source with a known intensity (RGB parameters) and then compare it with a HDRI render of a ‘physical’ area light in the same scene position with the same light power, both linear mapped in into 8-bits.
In real life we should always differenciate between “ligth shed” and “light seen”, while in YafaRay both parameters could be mixed in the same setting which is light power. It is like white balance, it is a camera setting we in fact could simulate with light colors settings. It is possible to modify exposure and white balance in tonemapping but for the sake of comparison tests it is better keeping the camera factor as a neutral one with linear mappings.
For instance, another objective enviroment to test a correct result is to compare an HDRI enviroment image with the HDRI render of the same objects in a 3D scene, and correlating power settings and light sources exposure of both results, given that materias are correct. For that we would need a good deal of information about how the HDRI image was taken, as HDRI lighting depens on camera exposure despite the fact mapping is linear. The result is that we would correlate YafaRay lighting power to a certain exposure settings in a particular camera, nothing else.
IMO there is a good deal of “engine philosophy” about how to correlate lighting power to a given exposure results, and that’s a completely subjective area, since not only tone mapping or exposure settings are involved, but also sensor and lens behaviour, etc. IMO many commercial engines try to produce “good” results in a given range of exposure settings for usability reasons. That’s why is better concentrating on what every independent factor, light source, material and camera, is separatelly doing.
In fact the only way to solve this for once is implementing some sort of physical camera imo and discarding light source power as a significative paramenter, then we could draw meaningful comparisons.
Unuseable for me, had about 10 CTDs now and im sick of it. Unstable, crashes when picking materials.
You can report and discuss any bugs or other issues at yafaray.org This just looks like immature trolling.
Indeed, moreover when we have a bug hunting specialist right now in the yaf project.
and by the what is a CTD?
Think that means “crash to desktop”
Hi there! A question: is the image texture applying to materials working in the latest version? I tried to find the way but in vain. The images appear in the texture slot but they refuse to be applied to the materials by any means. I did inspect all the settings very carefully without any result. What may be going on? Any answer?
maybe the texture is encapsulated, try File > external data > unpack
Thanks Alvaro, there was the problem, now it is ok! : - )