Wrong calculaton of Lightbreaking in Octane?

[ALTO]

physically correct would look like "logo2.jpg", like in the first post!

How did you get this picture? This is not Arion lol....

[cfrank78]

I am getting closer, but this time i took diffuse material with blackbody emission and colour! Ill try mix material now to see if i can get the accurate results!

Karba i agree with you. I dont like Arion too. Especially their support, but sometimes, especially with diamonds, gemstones and specular material, arion seems to get more accurate results! I don´t know why that is, i am no specialist, i just see it here on my screen.
Your pictures look very nice, but just showing pictures doesn´t help me - i need to know what/ if i do something wrong. Can you try my szene to see what results you get?

I love to do real life testings, like with my dslr to see what it will look like in reality. Then i try to get the same results in Octane/Arion/Mentalray , especially when i work with my Jewelry, so that my renderings are very close to my real finished products! For Example i take one of my yellow Gold Rings, hold it beside the screen, take a HDR of my shop and compare and adjust until it looks like photographed! Thats my workflow and it works quite well.

Kind regards Chris!

[Refracty]

Areon is shit.

[cfrank78]

How did you get this picture? This is not Arion lol....

Alto - Logo2 is the Picture from their website! This is what i get when i put the same mesh in Arion:

After talking how bad other programs are, can we please come back to topic and see why "the good" octane can´t get these results?

Kind regards Chris!

[Proupin]

Areon is shit.

he looks mad

anyway, chris you said you made a real picture and got that result as well. I think it would be nice to post it? I don't have an opinion on Arion, but if you say you get closer results elsewhere and not in Octane there must be a reason, and wouldn't be the first time either.

[steveps3]

boris yours is wrong too. physically correct would look like "logo2.jpg", like in the first post!

Physics is crying looking at "logo2.jpg".

For once I am going to have to agree with Jimstar. Logo2 is just wrong. I am not sure what sort of physical world would result in more light being occluded resulting in more light being seen. It would make sunglasses completely useless.

[steveps3]

You can probably achieve the result you want by making the object emitters (just look at your TV screen). As we all know adding lights causes things to get brighter. Occluding light causes things to get darker.

Maybe this will help?
http://www.worqx.com/color/color_systems.htm

[cfrank78]

For once I am going to have to agree with Jimstar. Logo2 is just wrong. I am not sure what sort of physical world would result in more light being occluded resulting in more light being seen. It would make sunglasses completely useless.

It is no question of more/less light. It is a question of how light gets broken. Like a rainbow. The small drops of the rain, break the light into its basic colours, so a rainbow happens. When you put a red over a green you get yellow = complementary colour (i hope thats the correct english word) If you put red over green over blue the light gets completely broken and is pure white again.

Slowly, it seems to me that I find myself in a Nikon / Canon DSLR forum. I say in the Nikon forum, that the Nikon cam has an error and show that it can be done properly with a Canon and the result is that everybody complains about Canon, but no one says how to do it properly with Nikon. I know this scenario from DSLR forums but just wonder, that it's already come so far in the render scene!

I found the solution in mentalray and have to hurry up now to get my job done.

I don´t think that this discussion can help me. Feel free to continue to talk but I have to find solutions here and do my job. 3 programs show it differently than Octane. Biased and hybrid renderer.Unbiased gives different results. Either these three are wrong and Octane displays it correctly, or vice versa. I do not know! Thank god i became the results i was looking for - thats all i need for now.

No offense, and have a nice day - Chris

[cgpanda]

You are using a mesh, as a glass in colors. They are just piece of glass, and there is no way u can get that in real life unless your lights are really really strong. What i'm trying to say is "If u get those Triangles in "Lights" then u will get the white like the rainbow, because they are lights. But your triangles are not lights, they are a real life object, like a glass. They don't give lights they just let light pass.

I don't know if you understand me, because i feel my explanation is "shit" lol. That's why u get closer results with emmiters because they are lights.

So don't get confused with "lights vs objects". Painting those colors on paper doesn't give you white but black. Octane breaks the light correctly.


Edt: So by using hard light, alot of light, your piece of glasses start to work like a light, cuz now they give "lets say "green light" or red light" then those "lights become white". Maybe you should put the lights under your glasses. Forwarding you. So the light comes from under the glass , not spoting on the glass. This way u may get the results you are looking for, still u need strong lights.

cheers

For once I am going to have to agree with Jimstar. Logo2 is just wrong. I am not sure what sort of physical world would result in more light being occluded resulting in more light being seen. It would make sunglasses completely useless.

It is no question of more/less light. It is a question of how light gets broken. Like a rainbow. The small drops of the rain, break the light into its basic colours, so a rainbow happens. When you put a red over a green you get yellow = complementary colour (i hope thats the correct english word) If you put red over green over blue the light gets completely broken and is pure white again.

Slowly, it seems to me that I find myself in a Nikon / Canon DSLR forum. I say in the Nikon forum, that the Nikon cam has an error and show that it can be done properly with a Canon and the result is that everybody complains about Canon, but no one says how to do it properly with Nikon. I know this scenario from DSLR forums but just wonder, that it's already come so far in the render scene!

I found the solution in mentalray and have to hurry up now to get my job done.

I don´t think that this discussion can help me. Feel free to continue to talk but I have to find solutions here and do my job. 3 programs show it differently than Octane. Biased and hybrid renderer.Unbiased gives different results. Either these three are wrong and Octane displays it correctly, or vice versa. I do not know! Thank god i became the results i was looking for - thats all i need for now.

No offense, and have a nice day - Chris

[JimStar]

All the explanations made here about the difference between "light of some exact color" and "light of some color filtered again by another color filter" - is enough to understand "why", cfrank78 just needs to read and read it again before he understands the case.
The example with paints on paper or LCD martix - is good too for understanding the difference of cases where the colors are added or substracted. Simple words - you can not see some color if on the way to your eyes it is filtered by other color filter (in ideal world of coherent light, but in real world it will be close to this). So, if the green light coming from green glass filter tries to pass through red filter before entering your eye - it will not pass (as ideal coherent green does not contain red frequencies) and you will see dark. In real world you will see some noise light, but it will anyway be darker, not brighter.