[Radiance-general] RE: Radiance-general Digest, Vol 17, Issue 16

[atelier iebele abel]

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:

>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
>Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
>http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
>
>
>  
>