COLOR

  • 3D Lighting Tutorial by Amaan Kram

    http://www.amaanakram.com/lightingT/part1.htm

    The goals of lighting in 3D computer graphics are more or less the same as those of real world lighting.

     

    Lighting serves a basic function of bringing out, or pushing back the shapes of objects visible from the camera’s view.
    It gives a two-dimensional image on the monitor an illusion of the third dimension-depth.

    But it does not just stop there. It gives an image its personality, its character. A scene lit in different ways can give a feeling of happiness, of sorrow, of fear etc., and it can do so in dramatic or subtle ways. Along with personality and character, lighting fills a scene with emotion that is directly transmitted to the viewer.

     

    Trying to simulate a real environment in an artificial one can be a daunting task. But even if you make your 3D rendering look absolutely photo-realistic, it doesn’t guarantee that the image carries enough emotion to elicit a “wow” from the people viewing it.

     

    Making 3D renderings photo-realistic can be hard. Putting deep emotions in them can be even harder. However, if you plan out your lighting strategy for the mood and emotion that you want your rendering to express, you make the process easier for yourself.

     

    Each light source can be broken down in to 4 distinct components and analyzed accordingly.

    · Intensity
    · Direction
    · Color
    · Size

     

    The overall thrust of this writing is to produce photo-realistic images by applying good lighting techniques.

    , ,
    Read more: 3D Lighting Tutorial by Amaan Kram
  • Capturing textures albedo

    Building a Portable PBR Texture Scanner by Stephane Lb
    http://rtgfx.com/pbr-texture-scanner/

     

     

    How To Split Specular And Diffuse In Real Images, by John Hable
    http://filmicworlds.com/blog/how-to-split-specular-and-diffuse-in-real-images/

     

    Capturing albedo using a Spectralon
    https://www.activision.com/cdn/research/Real_World_Measurements_for_Call_of_Duty_Advanced_Warfare.pdf

    Real_World_Measurements_for_Call_of_Duty_Advanced_Warfare.pdf

    Spectralon is a teflon-based pressed powderthat comes closest to being a pure Lambertian diffuse material that reflects 100% of all light. If we take an HDR photograph of the Spectralon alongside the material to be measured, we can derive thediffuse albedo of that material.

     

    The process to capture diffuse reflectance is very similar to the one outlined by Hable.

     

    1. We put a linear polarizing filter in front of the camera lens and a second linear polarizing filterin front of a modeling light or a flash such that the two filters are oriented perpendicular to eachother, i.e. cross polarized.

     

    2. We place Spectralon close to and parallel with the material we are capturing and take brack-eted shots of the setup7. Typically, we’ll take nine photographs, from -4EV to +4EV in 1EVincrements.

     

    3. We convert the bracketed shots to a linear HDR image. We found that many HDR packagesdo not produce an HDR image in which the pixel values are linear. PTGui is an example of apackage which does generate a linear HDR image. At this point, because of the cross polarization,the image is one of surface diffuse response.

     

    4. We open the file in Photoshop and normalize the image by color picking the Spectralon, filling anew layer with that color and setting that layer to “Divide”. This sets the Spectralon to 1 in theimage. All other color values are relative to this so we can consider them as diffuse albedo.

    , , ,
    Read more: Capturing textures albedo
  • FXGuide – ACES 2.0 with ILM’s Alex Fry

    https://draftdocs.acescentral.com/background/whats-new/

    ACES 2.0 is the second major release of the components that make up the ACES system. The most significant change is a new suite of rendering transforms whose design was informed by collected feedback and requests from users of ACES 1. The changes aim to improve the appearance of perceived artifacts and to complete previously unfinished components of the system, resulting in a more complete, robust, and consistent product.

    Highlights of the key changes in ACES 2.0 are as follows:

    • New output transforms, including:
      • A less aggressive tone scale
      • More intuitive controls to create custom outputs to non-standard displays
      • Robust gamut mapping to improve perceptual uniformity
      • Improved performance of the inverse transforms
    • Enhanced AMF specification
    • An updated specification for ACES Transform IDs
    • OpenEXR compression recommendations
    • Enhanced tools for generating Input Transforms and recommended procedures for characterizing prosumer cameras
    • Look Transform Library
    • Expanded documentation

    Rendering Transform

    The most substantial change in ACES 2.0 is a complete redesign of the rendering transform.

    ACES 2.0 was built as a unified system, rather than through piecemeal additions. Different deliverable outputs “match” better and making outputs to display setups other than the provided presets is intended to be user-driven. The rendering transforms are less likely to produce undesirable artifacts “out of the box”, which means less time can be spent fixing problematic images and more time making pictures look the way you want.

    Key design goals

    • Improve consistency of tone scale and provide an easy to use parameter to allow for outputs between preset dynamic ranges
    • Minimize hue skews across exposure range in a region of same hue
    • Unify for structural consistency across transform type
    • Easy to use parameters to create outputs other than the presets
    • Robust gamut mapping to improve harsh clipping artifacts
    • Fill extents of output code value cube (where appropriate and expected)
    • Invertible – not necessarily reversible, but Output > ACES > Output round-trip should be possible
    • Accomplish all of the above while maintaining an acceptable “out-of-the box” rendering

    ,
    Read more: FXGuide – ACES 2.0 with ILM’s Alex Fry
  • No one could see the colour blue until modern times

    https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blue-and-how-do-we-see-color-2015-2

    The way that humans see the world… until we have a way to describe something, even something so fundamental as a colour, we may not even notice that something it’s there.

     

    Ancient languages didn’t have a word for blue — not Greek, not Chinese, not Japanese, not Hebrew, not Icelandic cultures. And without a word for the colour, there’s evidence that they may not have seen it at all.

    https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/211119-colors

     

    Every language first had a word for black and for white, or dark and light. The next word for a colour to come into existence — in every language studied around the world — was red, the colour of blood and wine.

    After red, historically, yellow appears, and later, green (though in a couple of languages, yellow and green switch places). The last of these colours to appear in every language is blue.

     

    The only ancient culture to develop a word for blue was the Egyptians — and as it happens, they were also the only culture that had a way to produce a blue dye.

    https://mymodernmet.com/shades-of-blue-color-history/



    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/scientists-recreate-lost-recipes-for-a-5-000-year-old-egyptian-blue-dye/ar-AA1FXcj1

    Assessment of process variability and color in synthesized and ancient Egyptian blue pigments | npj Heritage Science

    The approximately 5,000-year-old dye wasn’t a single color, but instead encompassed a range of hues, from deep blues to duller grays and greens. Artisans first crafted Egyptian blue during the Fourth Dynasty (roughly 2613 to 2494 BCE) from recipes reliant on calcium-copper silicate. These techniques were later adopted by Romans in lieu of more expensive materials like lapis lazuli and turquoise. But the additional ingredient lists were lost to history by the time of the Renaissance. 

    McCloy’s team confirmed that cuprorivaite—the naturally occurring mineral equivalent to Egyptian blue—remains the primary color influence in each hue. Despite the presence of other components, Egyptian blue appears as a uniform color after the cuprorivaite becomes encased in colorless particles such as silicate during the heating process.

     

    Considered to be the first ever synthetically produced color pigment, Egyptian blue (also known as cuprorivaite) was created around 2,200 B.C. It was made from ground limestone mixed with sand and a copper-containing mineral, such as azurite or malachite, which was then heated between 1470 and 1650°F. The result was an opaque blue glass which then had to be crushed and combined with thickening agents such as egg whites to create a long-lasting paint or glaze.

     

     

    If you think about it, blue doesn’t appear much in nature — there aren’t animals with blue pigments (except for one butterfly, Obrina Olivewing, all animals generate blue through light scattering), blue eyes are rare (also blue through light scattering), and blue flowers are mostly human creations. There is, of course, the sky, but is that really blue?

     

     

    So before we had a word for it, did people not naturally see blue? Do you really see something if you don’t have a word for it?

     

    A researcher named Jules Davidoff traveled to Namibia to investigate this, where he conducted an experiment with the Himba tribe, who speak a language that has no word for blue or distinction between blue and green. When shown a circle with 11 green squares and one blue, they couldn’t pick out which one was different from the others.

     

    When looking at a circle of green squares with only one slightly different shade, they could immediately spot the different one. Can you?

     

    Davidoff says that without a word for a colour, without a way of identifying it as different, it’s much harder for us to notice what’s unique about it — even though our eyes are physically seeing the blocks it in the same way.

     

    Further research brought to wider discussions about color perception in humans. Everything that we make is based on the fact that humans are trichromatic. The television only has 3 colors. Our color printers have 3 different colors. But some people, and in specific some women seemed to be more sensible to color differences… mainly because they’re just more aware or – because of the job that they do.

    Eventually this brought to the discovery of a small percentage of the population, referred to as tetrachromats, which developed an extra cone sensitivity to yellow, likely due to gene modifications.

    The interesting detail about these is that even between tetrachromats, only the ones that had a reason to develop, label and work with extra color sensitivity actually developed the ability to use their native skills.

     

    So before blue became a common concept, maybe humans saw it. But it seems they didn’t know they were seeing it.

    If you see something yet can’t see it, does it exist? Did colours come into existence over time? Not technically, but our ability to notice them… may have…

     

    , , ,
    Read more: No one could see the colour blue until modern times

LIGHTING