Yeah, exactly 'bout that!PAQUITO wrote:I guess you are talking about the blueish tint you get in DL when using the sky environment. In this scene I use a blue emitter combined with a white environment. Also I use to make a white balance at the end (with the white point tool).glimpse wrote:The Only question, how You manage to remove that tint (usually blueish)?
Hi mate, the GI Clamp its a option in PT kernel. Most of the times I use DL (AO and Difuse) but sometimes I need Path Tracing and in there we have the GI Clamp that gives faster results.PAQUITO wrote:Hey resmas, what is that GI clamp thing you are talking about?
Do you really have these kind of tight deadlines where you really can't afford a PT/PMC render? I mean, AFAIK, we have pause/resume render, batch render, etc. You don't have to send your client a full clean noise-free render for every change you make. After 2 mins the render gives you a good idea of what the final image is going to look like. Then, you let it render overnight... in 48h straight you could get 5 x 10-hours high quality renders. I don't have much experience yet but I struggle to understand how can they not give you a day or 2 to do the final renderings. How much time do you have to make a typical 5-10 images project?futoryan wrote:I agree. It's all about the speed to quality ratio.Seekerfinder wrote:Paquito has shown on many occasions what is possible with DL. I am always impressed with the speed-quality ratio he achieves with this approach. DL is always good for iterative work, but if we can use it for production, so much the better.
Seeker
I use PT and pmc for my personal work when I have time for longer renders, but in a production environment fast turn-around is very important and time is a rare luxury. DL is often my goto kernel because it produces pleasing results very quickly. Clients don't care as long as the image looks good, and ultimately, they have the final say.
Of course, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Sometimes i have 8 hours to model and render....so DL is the answer.heartlessphil wrote:Do you really have these kind of tight deadlines where you really can't afford a PT/PMC render? I mean, AFAIK, we have pause/resume render, batch render, etc. You don't have to send your client a full clean noise-free render for every change you make. After 2 mins the render gives you a good idea of what the final image is going to look like. Then, you let it render overnight... in 48h straight you could get 5 x 10-hours high quality renders. I don't have much experience yet but I struggle to understand how can they not give you a day or 2 to do the final renderings. How much time do you have to make a typical 5-10 images project?futoryan wrote:I agree. It's all about the speed to quality ratio.Seekerfinder wrote:Paquito has shown on many occasions what is possible with DL. I am always impressed with the speed-quality ratio he achieves with this approach. DL is always good for iterative work, but if we can use it for production, so much the better.
Seeker
I use PT and pmc for my personal work when I have time for longer renders, but in a production environment fast turn-around is very important and time is a rare luxury. DL is often my goto kernel because it produces pleasing results very quickly. Clients don't care as long as the image looks good, and ultimately, they have the final say.
Of course, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.
I can see the differences between your image and my image (not color balance nor exposure):PAQUITO wrote:Yes, I like it, and the image is good. Now, you spent 15 minutes versus something like 1 minute or less for my image. And putting them side by side, I can´t see why I must consider the PMC version better than the DL version. To me are nearly identical (appart from the color balance and exposure).
nuno1980 wrote:I can see the differences between your image and my image..
