Hi Jack,
Thanks for your suggestions.
To make it clear: I'm not fussing about the workflow I developed to produce
the Radiance output. Those are some of my most dark & inner secrets only to
be shared with certain mailing lists 
The idea is to find a way to communicate the abundance of data a Radiance
image contains. One of the more original ways of doing so, is perhaps the
example given _the book_, where Charles Ehrlich is pointing out how to fake
asa/iso exposure of a Radiance image. Which isn't a particularly useful
thing to do, but does give insight to the extent of control a decent
Radiance operator has.
Thanks for supporting the virtual prototype thing... I'm not a fan of
marketing yadi yadi yah, but one has to stand firm when comes to Radiance
accuracy. The point of accurately modeling light & materials is taken, for
sure.
Cheers,
Jelle.
路路路
-------
Hey Jelle,
Just a few thoughts here. Explaining rendering systems to clients is
always difficult. I think that unfortunately clients typically just want
good looking images and do not neccessarily care how the images is
"made." However, I think that you are probably on a good track to
consider the results of a Radiance simulation as a virtual prototype,
which means something more than just a "rendering." But in order for
this to hold true, the underlying data, (lighting levels, materials,
geometry and other fundamental assumptions in the scene) used to
generate the simulations needs to be "accurate" to some standard
suitable for the given objective. Filtering an image with tone mapping
offers one way to view the scene in the image.
-Jack
Hi Jelle,
Yes, I think that there are few different strategies for workflow that different people/groups on this list employ. I know that everyone has their reasons and preferences. We employ our own strategy and tools for workflow management.
I think that some of the real strengths of radiance are more built into the ability to perform what I would term "technical" or "performance simulations" focused on material and/or lighting performance. Most of our work though tends to be more about making nice pictures of architecture. For better or worse there are a lot of very powerful off-the-shelf rendering/animation packages that are awfully good at making nice pictures. So from some standpoints, unless the client is after a performance simulation, they really do not care about the technology. So perhaps one of the strenghts that you may have in your services is in fact your workflow and method of working with your clients to accomplish their objectives.
Just my thoughts offered for discussion.
-Jack
Jelle Feringa / EZCT Architecture & Design Research wrote:
路路路
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your suggestions.
To make it clear: I'm not fussing about the workflow I developed to produce
the Radiance output. Those are some of my most dark & inner secrets only to
be shared with certain mailing lists
The idea is to find a way to communicate the abundance of data a Radiance
image contains. One of the more original ways of doing so, is perhaps the
example given _the book_, where Charles Ehrlich is pointing out how to fake
asa/iso exposure of a Radiance image. Which isn't a particularly useful
thing to do, but does give insight to the extent of control a decent
Radiance operator has.
Thanks for supporting the virtual prototype thing... I'm not a fan of
marketing yadi yadi yah, but one has to stand firm when comes to Radiance
accuracy. The point of accurately modeling light & materials is taken, for
sure.
Cheers,
Jelle.
-------
Hey Jelle,
Just a few thoughts here. Explaining rendering systems to clients is always difficult. I think that unfortunately clients typically just want good looking images and do not neccessarily care how the images is "made." However, I think that you are probably on a good track to consider the results of a Radiance simulation as a virtual prototype, which means something more than just a "rendering." But in order for this to hold true, the underlying data, (lighting levels, materials, geometry and other fundamental assumptions in the scene) used to generate the simulations needs to be "accurate" to some standard suitable for the given objective. Filtering an image with tone mapping offers one way to view the scene in the image.
-Jack
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
--
# John E. de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction
Hi Jelle,
In all cases that I discus design issues, I talk about Radiance as a tool that is usefull to compare one design or situation with another. That means that when I design some lighting solution, I always make two or more situations. That makes that in a discussion everybody understand at least one important value of the images: to compare one design or situation with another. (when I came up whith only one image, most people said: "well this is a synthetic image, the real world will differ". And because they are right in saying that, the radiance images appeared meaningless. )
Another suggestion is to contact a manufacturer (I have had good results with Philips Iguzinni in our area) and share your images with. They can ( or not, then you 'callibrate' further ) approve your calculations. And that will impress your clients for sure.
A lot of clients do have to do a lot of 'marketing yadi yadi yah'. Your images may play an important role for you clients in getting other parties interested in the project. For that purpose probably the best looking images are preferred above the most accurate.
Good luck!
iebele
Jelle Feringa / EZCT Architecture & Design Research wrote:
路路路
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your suggestions.
To make it clear: I'm not fussing about the workflow I developed to produce
the Radiance output. Those are some of my most dark & inner secrets only to
be shared with certain mailing lists
The idea is to find a way to communicate the abundance of data a Radiance
image contains. One of the more original ways of doing so, is perhaps the
example given _the book_, where Charles Ehrlich is pointing out how to fake
asa/iso exposure of a Radiance image. Which isn't a particularly useful
thing to do, but does give insight to the extent of control a decent
Radiance operator has.
Thanks for supporting the virtual prototype thing... I'm not a fan of
marketing yadi yadi yah, but one has to stand firm when comes to Radiance
accuracy. The point of accurately modeling light & materials is taken, for
sure.
Cheers,
Jelle.
-------
Hey Jelle,
Just a few thoughts here. Explaining rendering systems to clients is always difficult. I think that unfortunately clients typically just want good looking images and do not neccessarily care how the images is "made." However, I think that you are probably on a good track to consider the results of a Radiance simulation as a virtual prototype, which means something more than just a "rendering." But in order for this to hold true, the underlying data, (lighting levels, materials, geometry and other fundamental assumptions in the scene) used to generate the simulations needs to be "accurate" to some standard suitable for the given objective. Filtering an image with tone mapping offers one way to view the scene in the image.
-Jack
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
