Topic: >spending several days making a photorealistic model of your living space in blender
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #114,506
Just to test out different lighting setups. Sadly, I'm not sure I can trust it because the "watts" it uses seem to not quite replicate my current setup when I put in everything according to how the room is now. I have to manually adjust the lights' power levels to get it replicating what I have. So it's hard to test out lights I don't own since I can't just put in the rated wattage.
I want to get at least 2k lux everywhere in the room I'm working with, but as far as I can tell there's no easy way to measure the lux in blender. Combined with the problem above, it makes this exercise not as useful as it should've been.
I mean, I have an idea how it'll look, but I hoped for a bit more certainty on if I've added enough light.
Well, at least I can now test out how it'll look if I move my furniture to different configurations without actually having to do it.
I want to get at least 2k lux everywhere in the room I'm working with, but as far as I can tell there's no easy way to measure the lux in blender. Combined with the problem above, it makes this exercise not as useful as it should've been.
I mean, I have an idea how it'll look, but I hoped for a bit more certainty on if I've added enough light.
Well, at least I can now test out how it'll look if I move my furniture to different configurations without actually having to do it.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,266,870
It's using Radiant Flux, which is a different measurement of Watts
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,872
It is Radiant Flux or Radiant Power which is also measured in Watts. It is the energy radiated from the light in the form of visible light.
If you want to set the power to real world values, you have to convert the wattage of consumer bulbs or LED lights to radiant flux, but it is not a straightforward process. The wattage of bulbs means the electrical power required to power them. LED lights have a “Watt equivalent” which is neither the electrical power they require nor the amount of light they put out. Some consumer lights specify lumens or luminous flux which is the radiant flux weighted with the wavelengths perceived by the human eye.
To save you from doing the conversion, here is a table of typical power values for point, spot, and area lights:
Real world light
Power
Suggested Light Type
Candle
0.05 W
Point
800 lm LED bulb
2.1 W
Point
1000 lm light bulb
2.9 W
Point
1500 lm PAR38 floodlight
4 W
Area, Disk
2500 lm fluorescent tube
4.5 W
Area, Rectangle
5000 lm car headlight
22 W
Spot, size 125 degrees
And a table of typical Strength values for sun lights:
Sun type
Strength
Clear sky
1000 W/m2
Cloudy sky
500 W/m2
Overcast sky
200 W/m2
Moonlight
0.001 W/m2
These values will likely produce much brighter or dimmer lights than you would expect, because our eyes adapt while a render engine does not. So to compensate, adjust the Exposure in Render ‣ Film.
To get realistic results, remember to also set the light size and color to realistic values. The color of your lights will also influence how bright they appear to the human visual system. If you leave the power unchanged, a green light will seem the brightest, red darker and blue the darkest. Thus you might want to manually compensate for these perceived differences.
If you want to set the power to real world values, you have to convert the wattage of consumer bulbs or LED lights to radiant flux, but it is not a straightforward process. The wattage of bulbs means the electrical power required to power them. LED lights have a “Watt equivalent” which is neither the electrical power they require nor the amount of light they put out. Some consumer lights specify lumens or luminous flux which is the radiant flux weighted with the wavelengths perceived by the human eye.
To save you from doing the conversion, here is a table of typical power values for point, spot, and area lights:
Real world light
Power
Suggested Light Type
Candle
0.05 W
Point
800 lm LED bulb
2.1 W
Point
1000 lm light bulb
2.9 W
Point
1500 lm PAR38 floodlight
4 W
Area, Disk
2500 lm fluorescent tube
4.5 W
Area, Rectangle
5000 lm car headlight
22 W
Spot, size 125 degrees
And a table of typical Strength values for sun lights:
Sun type
Strength
Clear sky
1000 W/m2
Cloudy sky
500 W/m2
Overcast sky
200 W/m2
Moonlight
0.001 W/m2
These values will likely produce much brighter or dimmer lights than you would expect, because our eyes adapt while a render engine does not. So to compensate, adjust the Exposure in Render ‣ Film.
To get realistic results, remember to also set the light size and color to realistic values. The color of your lights will also influence how bright they appear to the human visual system. If you leave the power unchanged, a green light will seem the brightest, red darker and blue the darkest. Thus you might want to manually compensate for these perceived differences.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,874
from the Blender documentation
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/lights/light_object.html#
https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/lights/light_object.html#
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,882
@1,266,870 (B)
Watts are the measure of radiant flux.
Of course not all emitted light is visible light. And that's where the measure of lumens comes in. Which is just wattage but weighted by a function that removes contributions of wavelengths we can't see. Blender isn't explicitly doing this. But it also doesn't model light outside the visible spectrum, so it kind of is, but kind of isn't doing this.
There are calculators to help convert from lumens (as claimed by the manufacturer of the bulb) to watts. They're approximations because the conversion really depends on the full spectrum of color of the light. I tried a few.
The other easier way is to take the actual electrical wattage of the bulb and look up from a table of bulb types the average conversion efficiency to visible light. For LEDs it's around 90% if I recall. That gave the best results, but still required manual adjustment to get it looking right.
Watts are the measure of radiant flux.
Of course not all emitted light is visible light. And that's where the measure of lumens comes in. Which is just wattage but weighted by a function that removes contributions of wavelengths we can't see. Blender isn't explicitly doing this. But it also doesn't model light outside the visible spectrum, so it kind of is, but kind of isn't doing this.
There are calculators to help convert from lumens (as claimed by the manufacturer of the bulb) to watts. They're approximations because the conversion really depends on the full spectrum of color of the light. I tried a few.
The other easier way is to take the actual electrical wattage of the bulb and look up from a table of bulb types the average conversion efficiency to visible light. For LEDs it's around 90% if I recall. That gave the best results, but still required manual adjustment to get it looking right.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,883
@previous (A)
The Watts listed on your lights aren't. They're a measurement of how much electricity is drawn.
The Watts listed on your lights aren't. They're a measurement of how much electricity is drawn.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,884
@1,266,882 (A)
Just read what the documentation says, you're getting it all wrong. Stop being wrong about light.
Just read what the documentation says, you're getting it all wrong. Stop being wrong about light.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,885
@1,266,872 (B)
> 800 lm LED bulb
> 2.1 W
I really can't see how this makes any sense and tells me there's something not quite right with their calibration.
I have a few 750 lumen bulbs that use 9 watts.
As I said, other sources are telling me these are about 90% efficient at turning the electrical power to visible light.
It makes no sense that a 800 lumen bulb would be putting out only 2.1 watts of visible light.
> 800 lm LED bulb
> 2.1 W
I really can't see how this makes any sense and tells me there's something not quite right with their calibration.
I have a few 750 lumen bulbs that use 9 watts.
As I said, other sources are telling me these are about 90% efficient at turning the electrical power to visible light.
It makes no sense that a 800 lumen bulb would be putting out only 2.1 watts of visible light.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 32 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,886
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,889
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,891
@previous (B)
Start. Being. Actually. Helpful. Start. Spreading. The. Word. Start. Being. Dead.
The documentation cannot change physical facts about the world. Like the fact that no sane 800 lumen bulb is only going to give out 2.1 watts of visible light. Thanks.
Start. Being. Actually. Helpful. Start. Spreading. The. Word. Start. Being. Dead.
The documentation cannot change physical facts about the world. Like the fact that no sane 800 lumen bulb is only going to give out 2.1 watts of visible light. Thanks.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 50 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,892
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,894
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,896
@previous (A)
A rendering engine doesn't have human eyes. Read the documentation next time. Sucks to be you that your project was a waste of effort. Buy whatever lights you want and return what doesn't work, dork
A rendering engine doesn't have human eyes. Read the documentation next time. Sucks to be you that your project was a waste of effort. Buy whatever lights you want and return what doesn't work, dork
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,899
@previous (B)
Nothing you posted addresses anything that I've said.
I don't know what world or universe the blender developers live in, but a 800 lumen bulb giving 2.1 watts of visible light makes no sense and can be confirmed by 2 seconds of searching, or simply looking at literally any LED bulb you own and seeing that blender's numbers are wack. Looking at the actual power draw, not the incandescent-equivilent-bullshit-watts that no one's talking about here.
Nothing you posted addresses anything that I've said.
I don't know what world or universe the blender developers live in, but a 800 lumen bulb giving 2.1 watts of visible light makes no sense and can be confirmed by 2 seconds of searching, or simply looking at literally any LED bulb you own and seeing that blender's numbers are wack. Looking at the actual power draw, not the incandescent-equivilent-bullshit-watts that no one's talking about here.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,900
@1,266,882 (A)
> Watts are the measure of radiant flux.
No, radiant flux is the energy radiated per second.
@1,266,883 (B)
> The Watts listed on your lights aren't. They're a measurement of how much electricity is drawn.
This. Watts = electrical power.
> Watts are the measure of radiant flux.
No, radiant flux is the energy radiated per second.
@1,266,883 (B)
> The Watts listed on your lights aren't. They're a measurement of how much electricity is drawn.
This. Watts = electrical power.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,902
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,904
@1,266,900 (C)
No.
> The SI unit of radiant flux is the watt (W)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux
> Watts = electrical power.
Not quite. Watts are a general unit of power. Not all power is electrical! Not even close.
With light bulbs, the electrical power is converted to radiant flux. LEDs are about 90% efficient in performing this conversion in the visible spectrum.
No.
> The SI unit of radiant flux is the watt (W)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux
> Watts = electrical power.
Not quite. Watts are a general unit of power. Not all power is electrical! Not even close.
With light bulbs, the electrical power is converted to radiant flux. LEDs are about 90% efficient in performing this conversion in the visible spectrum.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,905
@1,266,902 (B)
You are an example of a generalised form of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Not only do you over-estimate your own knowledge, you simultaneously underestimate everyone else's. What a dangerous combination lol.
You are an example of a generalised form of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Not only do you over-estimate your own knowledge, you simultaneously underestimate everyone else's. What a dangerous combination lol.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 55 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,909
@1,266,904 (A)
That's NOT what the wattage on your lighting denotes, retard. If it says Watts it's telling you what the power draw is.
That's NOT what the wattage on your lighting denotes, retard. If it says Watts it's telling you what the power draw is.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,951
@previous (B)
Try reading:
With light bulbs, the electrical power is converted to radiant flux. LEDs are about 90% efficient in performing this conversion in the visible spectrum.
Try reading:
With light bulbs, the electrical power is converted to radiant flux. LEDs are about 90% efficient in performing this conversion in the visible spectrum.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,963
@previous (A)
I don't know what to tell you. Your're idea was bad. Even if Blender had a human vision simulator, what screen could you possibly use to display the renders?
This is shtick. See you next week.
I don't know what to tell you. Your're idea was bad. Even if Blender had a human vision simulator, what screen could you possibly use to display the renders?
This is shtick. See you next week.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 57 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,964
Also post the render of your apartment or it never happened
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,972
@1,266,963 (B)
No, it wasn't. There is software out there that can do realistic lighting. Lighting engineers and even architects use it every day. In looking into this, I saw people saying that even some game engines (Unity and others if I recall), handle lighting better than Blender. Blender is years behind modern rendering software. It's fucking remarkable that Unity would be better because Blender's cycles is a ray tracer and it makes absolutely no sense that a game engine should beat it anywhere when it comes to light.
But forgetting all that, all it takes is a single brain cell to realise there's something seriously wrong with the table they give in the documentation (again, even forgetting that the actual numerical values don't match anything close to a bulb and its efficiency you'd buy here on planet earth):
> 800 lm LED bulb
> 2.1 W
> Point
> 1000 lm light bulb
> 2.9 W
While it depends on each exact bulb, you'd expect the average to be roughly linear. So we ought to expect with their calibration for the 800 lm bulb, that the 1000 lm bulb should be set at:
(1000/800)*2.1 = 2.625 W
Unlike their 2.9 W suggestion which is over 10% off, which adds up because we're only talking about a single bulb here within close range of the rated value where we'd expect such errors to be very small.
This makes the whole enterprise of using blender for realistic lighting entirely pointless. It's impossible to know what value to set a light at just from the rated lumens of the bulb. You instead have to render up the whole scene and manually adjust it to what you actually see. Zero predictive value. Zero use in planning.
No, it wasn't. There is software out there that can do realistic lighting. Lighting engineers and even architects use it every day. In looking into this, I saw people saying that even some game engines (Unity and others if I recall), handle lighting better than Blender. Blender is years behind modern rendering software. It's fucking remarkable that Unity would be better because Blender's cycles is a ray tracer and it makes absolutely no sense that a game engine should beat it anywhere when it comes to light.
But forgetting all that, all it takes is a single brain cell to realise there's something seriously wrong with the table they give in the documentation (again, even forgetting that the actual numerical values don't match anything close to a bulb and its efficiency you'd buy here on planet earth):
> 800 lm LED bulb
> 2.1 W
> Point
> 1000 lm light bulb
> 2.9 W
While it depends on each exact bulb, you'd expect the average to be roughly linear. So we ought to expect with their calibration for the 800 lm bulb, that the 1000 lm bulb should be set at:
(1000/800)*2.1 = 2.625 W
Unlike their 2.9 W suggestion which is over 10% off, which adds up because we're only talking about a single bulb here within close range of the rated value where we'd expect such errors to be very small.
This makes the whole enterprise of using blender for realistic lighting entirely pointless. It's impossible to know what value to set a light at just from the rated lumens of the bulb. You instead have to render up the whole scene and manually adjust it to what you actually see. Zero predictive value. Zero use in planning.
dj cocos nucifera joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 24 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,977
not this idiot again
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,981
@previous (dj cocos nucifera)
Who do you think I am?
Also, try contributing to a discussion for once? Just a thought.
Who do you think I am?
Also, try contributing to a discussion for once? Just a thought.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,985
Tfw you make a photorealistic blender model of your apartment and you have to handsculpt your single bare lightbulb
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,991
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 41 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,266,993
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,018
@1,266,972 (A)
You have no idea what the equation to convert it is because you've been bitching instead of looking it up. If you don't believe the handy cheat sheet go read and learn how to do it instead of whining that you can't be bothered to look up how to use industry standard software and "the chart doesn't seem right".
Did you even try it? If the documentation quick start isn't cutting it for you, follow what it says and learn to convert the units. Fag.
You have no idea what the equation to convert it is because you've been bitching instead of looking it up. If you don't believe the handy cheat sheet go read and learn how to do it instead of whining that you can't be bothered to look up how to use industry standard software and "the chart doesn't seem right".
Did you even try it? If the documentation quick start isn't cutting it for you, follow what it says and learn to convert the units. Fag.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,019
Throckmorton !qRgc9HpKSA joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,025
I have visited various BDSM furry sims in Second Life and was astounded by the cool club lighting.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 47 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,031
@1,267,018 (B)
It's not a simple matter of conversion you literal retard. To arrive at the power they are using requires certain assumptions on the efficiency of the bulb. But luckily neither of us have to perform detailed spectographic measurements, because plenty of people have already done it and provided average values and ranges of this efficiency for household LEDs. It just so happens that every. single. one. of. them. disagrees by a large margin with what the blender devs put in the official docs.
You are wrong. The blender rendering lighting system is wrong. Deal with it.
It's not a simple matter of conversion you literal retard. To arrive at the power they are using requires certain assumptions on the efficiency of the bulb. But luckily neither of us have to perform detailed spectographic measurements, because plenty of people have already done it and provided average values and ranges of this efficiency for household LEDs. It just so happens that every. single. one. of. them. disagrees by a large margin with what the blender devs put in the official docs.
You are wrong. The blender rendering lighting system is wrong. Deal with it.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,120
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,125
@1,267,031 (A)
> The blender rendering lighting system is wrong.
I guess you're going to have to write a stern email to Ton Roosendaal and the Blender Foundation.
> The blender rendering lighting system is wrong.
I guess you're going to have to write a stern email to Ton Roosendaal and the Blender Foundation.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,127
Both of you are wrong.
boof joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,131
like, who wants to live in a blender? that can't be good
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,158
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,159
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,186
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,194
@previous (B)
No amount of learning to use rendering software will change physical reality. Sorry, not sorry.
No amount of learning to use rendering software will change physical reality. Sorry, not sorry.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,252
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,258
@previous (B)
And because of how broken blender's lighting is, it's further removed still.
And anyway, you don't know that it isn't in physical reality. Platonic forms would like to have a word with you.
And because of how broken blender's lighting is, it's further removed still.
And anyway, you don't know that it isn't in physical reality. Platonic forms would like to have a word with you.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,259
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,263
@previous (B)
The units being not only no where close to physical reality, but also being non-linearly off means that it's broken.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just accept it and move on.
The units being not only no where close to physical reality, but also being non-linearly off means that it's broken.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Just accept it and move on.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,264
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,266
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,267
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,268
Anonymous I replied with this 2 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,269
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,270
@1,267,267 (A)
I linked the blender documentation at the very top of this thread and you either didn't read it or are too dumb to understand it.
I linked the blender documentation at the very top of this thread and you either didn't read it or are too dumb to understand it.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,272
Anyway, don't use Blender for this. Download Bare Hanging Lightbulb Simulator 2024
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,276
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,279
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,281
@previous (B)
You are having a hard time accepting that you're wrong. Me living or dying has nothing to do with it and won't fix whatever deep-seated mental problems you have.
You are having a hard time accepting that you're wrong. Me living or dying has nothing to do with it and won't fix whatever deep-seated mental problems you have.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,283
@previous (A)
Your assumption that blender should be a direct replica of physical reality is erroneous
Your assumption that blender should be a direct replica of physical reality is erroneous
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,285
@previous (E)
What do you mean by direct replica? It should at least be able to take sane values of luminous power and give an output somewhat similar to what an actual room would look like. Other software has apparently been able to do this for years. No one is asking for realistic simulations of quantum teleportation or black hole thermodynamics.
What do you mean by direct replica? It should at least be able to take sane values of luminous power and give an output somewhat similar to what an actual room would look like. Other software has apparently been able to do this for years. No one is asking for realistic simulations of quantum teleportation or black hole thermodynamics.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,287
@previous (A)
> It should at least be able to take sane values of luminous power and give an output somewhat similar to what an actual room would look like.
You have made that up inside your head.
> It should at least be able to take sane values of luminous power and give an output somewhat similar to what an actual room would look like.
You have made that up inside your head.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,291
@previous (E)
Let me put it the other way: why shouldn't blender be able to do this when so many other programs are? some of which aren't even ray tracers
The fact that they are using SI units like watts heavily implies this is what they are aiming to do. Otherwise they should've just called it "blender bullshit units" or some such
Let me put it the other way: why shouldn't blender be able to do this when so many other programs are? some of which aren't even ray tracers
The fact that they are using SI units like watts heavily implies this is what they are aiming to do. Otherwise they should've just called it "blender bullshit units" or some such
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,296
@previous (A)
Why can't you afford lightbulbs? You "spent several days" modeling your bedroom but you should have just bought some lights to try out.
Why can't you afford lightbulbs? You "spent several days" modeling your bedroom but you should have just bought some lights to try out.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,297
This nigga getting uppity and he can't even afford to order different lights for he room
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,299
@1,267,291 (A)
Clearly, despite having a name the same as real world SI units, blender uses blender bullshit units.
Clearly, despite having a name the same as real world SI units, blender uses blender bullshit units.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,300
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,301
@1,267,296 (B)
@1,267,297 (B)
Sounds like a lot of projection lmao.
I'm planning to install inset overhead lights which involves cutting into the ceiling. So a little bit of planning can go a long way with a nearly irreversible installation.
@1,267,297 (B)
Sounds like a lot of projection lmao.
I'm planning to install inset overhead lights which involves cutting into the ceiling. So a little bit of planning can go a long way with a nearly irreversible installation.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,302
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,309
@1,267,263 (A)
> The units being not only no where close to physical reality, but also being non-linearly off means that it's broken.
Oh well, you're just going to have to write your own model-building app and rendering engine then.
Make it free and open source so we can see where you copy / paste from Blender's source code, when you realise they got a lot of shit right.
(I recommend Vulkan / C++)
> The units being not only no where close to physical reality, but also being non-linearly off means that it's broken.
Oh well, you're just going to have to write your own model-building app and rendering engine then.
Make it free and open source so we can see where you copy / paste from Blender's source code, when you realise they got a lot of shit right.
(I recommend Vulkan / C++)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,339
@1,267,302 (B)
No matter the price, it's much easier to rip out and re-do an entire ceiling than to simply plan a little and not make inappropriate and misplaced holes in it? Amirite? That's what you're saying lol?
No matter the price, it's much easier to rip out and re-do an entire ceiling than to simply plan a little and not make inappropriate and misplaced holes in it? Amirite? That's what you're saying lol?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,342
@1,267,309 (C)
There's also a lot of shit they got horribly wrong, since I suspect it's probably not trivial for them to get the units right due to major fundamental physical inaccuracies central to their approach.
There's also a lot of shit they got horribly wrong, since I suspect it's probably not trivial for them to get the units right due to major fundamental physical inaccuracies central to their approach.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 57 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,347
@1,267,300 (A)
Maybe, maybe not. Either way there is documentation which explains how to convert real world units so blender will approximate them with blender bullshit units.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way there is documentation which explains how to convert real world units so blender will approximate them with blender bullshit units.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,394
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,473
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,504
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,612
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,653
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,674
@previous (A)
> No. There isn't any math other than manually fine-tuning.
Keep thinking that. I hope you ruin your ceiling.
> No. There isn't any math other than manually fine-tuning.
Keep thinking that. I hope you ruin your ceiling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 31 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,676
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,695
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,701
@previous (B)
Reality doesn't change because you get upset. Reality doesn't change because someone writes something in a software package's documentation. This is not hard to understand.
Reality doesn't change because you get upset. Reality doesn't change because someone writes something in a software package's documentation. This is not hard to understand.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,703
@previous (A)
It's not a lightbulb simulator for people who want to make sure they buy the right lightbulbs. Sorry you got so confused. It's time to move on.
It's not a lightbulb simulator for people who want to make sure they buy the right lightbulbs. Sorry you got so confused. It's time to move on.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,710
@previous (B)
It aims to be much more than that, actually. And it fails spectacularly. Using a simple wave equation one can get better (any) estimates of lux measurements than blender. What an embarrassment (you are).
It aims to be much more than that, actually. And it fails spectacularly. Using a simple wave equation one can get better (any) estimates of lux measurements than blender. What an embarrassment (you are).
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,717
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,736
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,755
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 46 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,759
Just do it by eye jfc
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 10 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,783
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,792
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,834
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 24 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,840
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
If you think about it for half a second you'd know that this makes it completely useless for my purposes here.
If you think about it for half a second you'd know that this makes it completely useless for my purposes here.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 18 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,949
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 39 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,267,966
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,068
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,139
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Right. How could you possibly know after I've described my intentions multiple times all throughout the thread.
Right. How could you possibly know after I've described my intentions multiple times all throughout the thread.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,222
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,223
This has gotten out of control! Anonymous A, just buy a few different light bulbs and try them to find one you like! Anonymous B, stop being so smug about meaningless Internet arguments!
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,228
@previous (G)
20 minutes of reading about the software would have filled the gap in OPs knowledge and he could have done the thing he wanted. I pointed him in the right direction, I was the good faith participant here. If he wants to rant and blow off steam that's fine too but don't point it at someone offering advice. This isn't the first wrong-about-light shtick topic either
20 minutes of reading about the software would have filled the gap in OPs knowledge and he could have done the thing he wanted. I pointed him in the right direction, I was the good faith participant here. If he wants to rant and blow off steam that's fine too but don't point it at someone offering advice. This isn't the first wrong-about-light shtick topic either
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,295
@1,268,139 (A)
Nobody knows what you're trying to do, but it's certainly not learning to convert Blender Bullshit Units into real life lightbulb behaviors
Nobody knows what you're trying to do, but it's certainly not learning to convert Blender Bullshit Units into real life lightbulb behaviors
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,298
ugh you fucking faggots this thread is pissin me off@!@!!!
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,299
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,300
98
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,301
99
Anonymous B quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,302
100
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,303
@1,268,228 (B)
> 20 minutes of reading about the software would have filled the gap in OPs knowledge and he could have done the thing he wanted. I pointed him in the right direction, I was the good faith participant here. If he wants to rant and blow off steam that's fine too but don't point it at someone offering advice. This isn't the first wrong-about-light shtick topic either
No it wouldn't. The page you linked is completely unhelpful and irrelevant. If you would've actually looked into it, you'd find a half dozen or more posts of people complaining how bad and inaccurate blender's lighting system is and how it's years behind every other major renderer and even some game engines ffs. In every single one of those threads, not a single person supplies any solution other than just agreeing that, yes, blender sucks when it comes to this.
Your problem is that you think you know more than everyone else and can't admit that you're wrong. Although really the main problem is that you're very stupid.
> 20 minutes of reading about the software would have filled the gap in OPs knowledge and he could have done the thing he wanted. I pointed him in the right direction, I was the good faith participant here. If he wants to rant and blow off steam that's fine too but don't point it at someone offering advice. This isn't the first wrong-about-light shtick topic either
No it wouldn't. The page you linked is completely unhelpful and irrelevant. If you would've actually looked into it, you'd find a half dozen or more posts of people complaining how bad and inaccurate blender's lighting system is and how it's years behind every other major renderer and even some game engines ffs. In every single one of those threads, not a single person supplies any solution other than just agreeing that, yes, blender sucks when it comes to this.
Your problem is that you think you know more than everyone else and can't admit that you're wrong. Although really the main problem is that you're very stupid.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,304
@1,268,295 (E)
If there were such a conversion, I'd love to hear it. That's the entire point of this thread, but no one seems able to because all signs point to there being no such conversion since even the official documentation demonstrates the conversion is some completely unspecified non-linear function.
It'd be more work attempting to not only find the correct functional form of this conversion, but also to attempt to fit some unknown number of non-linear parameters than it would to just write completely custom software modeling a simple wave dispersion model. So again, what would even be the point of using blender then? It makes it completely useless for what predicting real-world lighting.
If there were such a conversion, I'd love to hear it. That's the entire point of this thread, but no one seems able to because all signs point to there being no such conversion since even the official documentation demonstrates the conversion is some completely unspecified non-linear function.
It'd be more work attempting to not only find the correct functional form of this conversion, but also to attempt to fit some unknown number of non-linear parameters than it would to just write completely custom software modeling a simple wave dispersion model. So again, what would even be the point of using blender then? It makes it completely useless for what predicting real-world lighting.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,344
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,348
@1,268,304 (A)
If you can't handle the math and you can't figure out how to use the nodes that do it for you and you can't figure out how to install a plugin that does all of the above, then you certainly can't write your own software to simulate lightbulbs. Dont lie.
If you can't handle the math and you can't figure out how to use the nodes that do it for you and you can't figure out how to install a plugin that does all of the above, then you certainly can't write your own software to simulate lightbulbs. Dont lie.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,365
@OP
Buy some light bulbs.
Buy some light bulbs.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,380
@1,268,344 (E)
It's implied that it ought to. They make every effort to lead you into believing it's for real world photorealistic rendering. But then they fuck up like this and all I can conclude is that it's, at best, a wannabe pixar simulator. They should just call the lighting units "magic". Yes, I'll take 5.2 units of magic, please.
It's implied that it ought to. They make every effort to lead you into believing it's for real world photorealistic rendering. But then they fuck up like this and all I can conclude is that it's, at best, a wannabe pixar simulator. They should just call the lighting units "magic". Yes, I'll take 5.2 units of magic, please.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,381
@1,268,348 (B)
Provide the math. Provide me the functional form of the conversion. You can't because no one knows it because anyone serious about photorealistic lighting prediction gave up and moved on to other software.
Provide the math. Provide me the functional form of the conversion. You can't because no one knows it because anyone serious about photorealistic lighting prediction gave up and moved on to other software.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,382
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,383
We should also stop calling them blender developers and instead start calling them "imagineers" as part of the re-branding effort @1,268,380 (A)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,385
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,387
@1,268,382 (A)
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Please accept this offer, I'm begging you. This topic needs to die before it kills us all.
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Please accept this offer, I'm begging you. This topic needs to die before it kills us all.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,407
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,411
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,423
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,424
@1,268,407 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
If you go back and re-read the entire thread you'll know why I'm doing it this way, you literal retard. If you want to just throw money at the situation and have this go the dumb way, then see my post directly above. Your choice.
If you go back and re-read the entire thread you'll know why I'm doing it this way, you literal retard. If you want to just throw money at the situation and have this go the dumb way, then see my post directly above. Your choice.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,425
@1,268,387 (G)
It could've died a long time ago if you or anyone could either showing me how to do what I set out to do, or just being straightforward about blender's weaknesses and admitting it simply cannot do what I need it to, which, for a ray-tracing renderer, is laughably little.
It could've died a long time ago if you or anyone could either showing me how to do what I set out to do, or just being straightforward about blender's weaknesses and admitting it simply cannot do what I need it to, which, for a ray-tracing renderer, is laughably little.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,427
@previous (A)
I showed you that you can use nodes for this and you started screeching that you couldn't see the math happening so you refused to go that route.
I showed you that you can use nodes for this and you started screeching that you couldn't see the math happening so you refused to go that route.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,430
@previous (B)
You provided a screenshot of nodes which had completely unexplained magic numbers like 673.0. That not only explains nothing, it provides me no reason to think it's any different than me just manually fine tuning all the luminance values myself by hand and just hoping, despite all odds, things will turn out for completely untested light sources.
You provided a screenshot of nodes which had completely unexplained magic numbers like 673.0. That not only explains nothing, it provides me no reason to think it's any different than me just manually fine tuning all the luminance values myself by hand and just hoping, despite all odds, things will turn out for completely untested light sources.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,439
@previous (A)
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't type all the numbers in. You put in the REAL LIFE number you're crying about not being in blender and the nodes turn it into blender units. Are you dumb? The specific numbers in the screenshot don't matter, I was pointing your brain dead ass in the right direction
You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't type all the numbers in. You put in the REAL LIFE number you're crying about not being in blender and the nodes turn it into blender units. Are you dumb? The specific numbers in the screenshot don't matter, I was pointing your brain dead ass in the right direction
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,441
@previous (B)
This is really unbelievable lol. I know how blender nodes work. Do you? Looks like you don't.
Look at the screenshot you posted again. You see that value 683.000? That's an unconstrained socket. That's not a value that the blender calculates and puts there. That's a value you type in yourself. The fact that you can't tell me where that number comes from is the whole goddamn problem.
The fact that you've demonstrated time and time again that you know little about blender, not even the basics of how nodes work, is also a problem. But it's not my problem. So stop making it be and either educate yourself and help me figure out how to accomplish what I set out to do, or simply shut the fuck up! Couldn't be simpler.
This is really unbelievable lol. I know how blender nodes work. Do you? Looks like you don't.
Look at the screenshot you posted again. You see that value 683.000? That's an unconstrained socket. That's not a value that the blender calculates and puts there. That's a value you type in yourself. The fact that you can't tell me where that number comes from is the whole goddamn problem.
The fact that you've demonstrated time and time again that you know little about blender, not even the basics of how nodes work, is also a problem. But it's not my problem. So stop making it be and either educate yourself and help me figure out how to accomplish what I set out to do, or simply shut the fuck up! Couldn't be simpler.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,442
@previous (A)
Shut the fuck up about blender and lightbulbs and don't make another post in this topic and after 1 month I will send $100 in BTC to your address. Otherwise, fuck you and I hope you die.
Shut the fuck up about blender and lightbulbs and don't make another post in this topic and after 1 month I will send $100 in BTC to your address. Otherwise, fuck you and I hope you die.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,443
@previous (B)
Looks like you've again been cornered, so you, once again, immediately lash out in anger.
Also get the fuck out of here with that $100 broke ass offer.
Looks like you've again been cornered, so you, once again, immediately lash out in anger.
Also get the fuck out of here with that $100 broke ass offer.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,444
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,446
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,447
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,450
@previous (B)
The only shtick here is you being wrong.
I guess we now know the answer to the question no one asked and no one wanted to know: Can a shtick be unintentional?
Clearly, in your case, it can.
The only shtick here is you being wrong.
I guess we now know the answer to the question no one asked and no one wanted to know: Can a shtick be unintentional?
Clearly, in your case, it can.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,454
@previous (A)
You spent "several days" modeling your ceiling in blender but you won't spend ten seconds typing numbers into a node. Enjoy your dead shtick topic.
You spent "several days" modeling your ceiling in blender but you won't spend ten seconds typing numbers into a node. Enjoy your dead shtick topic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,455
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 18 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,525
why not buy dimmable bulbs
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,527
why would you even think this would work
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,536
@1,268,525 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Already the plan. But how many? And what pattern would I put them along the ceiling?
Already the plan. But how many? And what pattern would I put them along the ceiling?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,537
@1,268,527 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Why would I think a ray-tracing renderer marketing itself as being photorealistic would be able to make a photorealistic scene?
Why would I think a ray-tracing renderer marketing itself as being photorealistic would be able to make a photorealistic scene?
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,567
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,570
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Photorealistic using realistic values of radiant flux. I know that last part, given that it's the entire point of the thread, is obvious to essentially everyone, but, with you, I'm not so sure. So consider the point clarified.
If it's able to do that, then tell me what I need to do. I'm listening.
This thread could've been 100+ replies shorter if you had just said this from the beginning.
Photorealistic using realistic values of radiant flux. I know that last part, given that it's the entire point of the thread, is obvious to essentially everyone, but, with you, I'm not so sure. So consider the point clarified.
If it's able to do that, then tell me what I need to do. I'm listening.
This thread could've been 100+ replies shorter if you had just said this from the beginning.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,571
@1,268,525 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
Already the plan. But how many? And what pattern would I put them along the ceiling?
Already the plan. But how many? And what pattern would I put them along the ceiling?
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,679
@previous (A)
whichever one you'd like
@1,268,570 (A)
realistic values of radiant flux are not at all within the scope of a program like blender
whichever one you'd like
@1,268,570 (A)
realistic values of radiant flux are not at all within the scope of a program like blender
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,708
@previous (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> whichever one you'd like
And this will ensure the space will be lit with my desired level of flux how?
> realistic values of radiant flux are not at all within the scope of a program like blender
Yet they're well within the scope of all other major renderers and even many game engines.
> whichever one you'd like
And this will ensure the space will be lit with my desired level of flux how?
> realistic values of radiant flux are not at all within the scope of a program like blender
Yet they're well within the scope of all other major renderers and even many game engines.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,736
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,738
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #1,268,883
@1,268,380 (A)
> They make every effort to lead you into believing it's for real world photorealistic rendering
No, they do not. You have merely imagined that Blender is secretly a lightbulb simulator, when actually it is and has always been a 3D modelling program.
> They make every effort to lead you into believing it's for real world photorealistic rendering
No, they do not. You have merely imagined that Blender is secretly a lightbulb simulator, when actually it is and has always been a 3D modelling program.