/3/ - 3DCG

What's the point of textures if there are no lights in the scene?

>>795837
>Do you agree?

No. What is more challenging will vary depending on exactly what you're working on.
You can have a complex model that requires trivial materials and texutures and vice versa.

But lighting? Come an, that is largely automatic and something you can learn to do just reading the manual to whatever you're using.
More a technical skill than an artistic one in our medium. If you know your engine/renderer you can set that up in >1% of the time you spend creating the assets you light.
Even the artistry of how you light a scene to look interesting is something you can rapidly pick up dissecting what it is that makes your favorite films and photographs work.
You need good taste and a bit of imagination but it is pretty much monkey see, monkey do tier if you got either.

If you're actually making lighting as in actually writing your own engine?
yeah sure it is very difficult but that is all logic and heavy maths and a very different kind of problem altogether.
What we do as artists setting up lighting in a scene and setting the parameters for the renderer is ABC123 tier compared to being a competent asset creator.

>>795837
No. It's >Lighting>Texturing>Modeling

>>795856
>>
What comes before the lighting?

>>795868

Artistic vision

>>795869

Autistic vision*

Okay the definitive chain of importance is as follows:
Autism>Artism>Lighting>Texturing>Modeling

>>795837
Modeling>Lighting>Texturing. mostly because photoshop is anal and because renderman is fun

>>795855
>But lighting? Come an, that is largely automatic and...
Oh no, it's this retard again.

>>795837
Idk if you mean what you personally like the most or something else, but to me it's

Lighting > texturing > modeling

I like sculpting a lot more than modeling, though. There are also other things like scene creation, which can be really fun as well.

I'm not good at any of these so fuck it

>>795902
>Oh no, it's this retard again.

What part of that is retarded? Good lighting is something you can buy. It will be as good as the renderer you have available.
All renderer comes with manuals that tell you what to to when to do it and how.
Everything that goes into the fidelity of your renders you can find in the documentation to your software.

And actually placing lights in the scene is also a low brainer, you can read a single book on film lighting
and come away with everything you need to know to light a scene professionally so it reads well.

You can figure out any renderer in less than a week, while learning to make good art assets take several years of grind.

>>795837
Modeling has more uses if you're doing something that isn't art by itself, like making molds or 3d printing.

>>795916
You don't understand shit about lighting. I won't repeat the same thing I wrote the last time you posted this. There are too many wrong things about your post to bother wasting my time on.

>>795837
That's a pretty weird workflow, ngl

>>795839
What are you even lighting if there are no models?

>>795837
If you mean what's more enjoyable, yeah.
However for what's most important
Lighting > modeling > texturing

>>795837
>Photographers light is everything
>Painters light is everything
>Drawers light is everything

Lighting is everything, fucking Lightcel.

>>795969
Don't know who you think I am but I haven't had any such conversation on /3/, haven't been back here for a few weeks.

>>796021
>Lighting is everything, fucking Lightcel.

Oh I see what you're getting at here now but you're not thinking.
If that notion was true the painter would leave the canvas white and the photographer would point his lens straight at the sun.

What matters is the interplay of values that generate an interesting image, the light is often the very same sky above.
What makes it interesting is your subject matter and the vantage point.

In lighting something to get an interesting interplay of shadow and illumination you can keep using the same bag of tricks over and over again.
I can sit a million characters in the same very studio light setup and it just works, or throw any scene I want into that GI raytracer and have it automatically lit.

>>795916
>95% of the time get paid to do fuck all while computer crunches raytracing numbers.

In the land of wageslaves the Lighting Chad is king.

>>796028
You are prob talking to blendlets who use a hacked array of a ~billion lights attempting to achieve what proprietary renderers can do in cycles.
They think it is supposed to be like that and lighting therefore seems like this impossible dark art to them

>>796028
>What matters is the interplay of values that generate an interesting image
Doing that is exactly the job of the lighting artist.

>I can sit a million characters in the same very studio light setup and it just works, or throw any scene I want into that GI raytracer and have it automatically lit.
This is like saying that you can place a bunch of vertices in many different places, and perspective still works. Of course it does -- but that's not what the modeler is concerned with, just as the lighter is not concerned with GI algorithms.

>>796030
>>95% of the time get paid to do fuck all while computer crunches raytracing numbers.
If this is the case, then something is very wrong in the way that tasks at the workplace have been set.

>>796040
>lighting artist.

As in someone whos dedicated purpose in life is to light other peoples shit with algorithms other people wrote? How do you get to become that guy?

>who's that guy over there that keeps showing up with a really puzzled expression before stroking 'enter' whenever we're ready to render?
>Oh that's Henry, the studio heads nephew, he's a light artist.

>>796047
What you describe is the task of a render wrangler. Learn what a lighting artist does before opening your mouth, kid.

>>796047
Yeah, I'm sure you're the same guy, you write in a same way. Talking solely about technical aspect of lighting even though I don't understand why. Lighting is much more than clicking a button and depending on a quality of "someone's algorithms".

Idk, you mentioning basic studio lighting setup on top of it all just makes it seem like you really don't understand lighting in-depth at all.

Stop generalizing, one could say the same shit about modeling props or texturing assets. You always do the "same thing" there as well. There are standard ways of achieving holes on curved surfaces with subd modeling or creating roughness variation of a surface, and then I can create templates for those etc. etc. Man, why am I even wasting time with this...

>>795837
Anyone who says lighting isn't the most important works in no actual professional setting in any capacity, and is a hobbyist, blendoid, or a brown skinned freelancer working for pennies on the dollar.

In other words, their opinions do not matter and you should refrain from interacting with them. Instead, societally shun them and ignore their words, and they will eventually hang themselves for being inferior.

>>795837
>Texturing>Lighting>Modeling
Are you fucking retarded ?
That's like saying painting a house comes before building it

>>796063
but who would like to live in a house without windows

>>796081
And how do you put windows if there's no house?

>>795837
>not doing all three
Lookat dis dood

Simple facts,

Lighting won't look good without good materials/textures.

Your textures look better if you have a better sculpt / hi poly model to work off.

End of story modelling is the foundation of the pyramid and must always be the most important.

If any step of the process is bad the result will be ruined though.

What would you guys say about Ian Hubert's work then? Simple low poly models + photo textures + nice lighting and the results are still insanely good.

>>796110
https://twitter.com/Mrdodobird/status/1313310912997060608

he also does complex models when the situation requires it, background elements can be literal 2d images in a matte painting scenario so it's not really a good comparison point.

The third and the seventh proves that modelling is overrated.

https://vimeo.com/7809605

>>796117
Well then it completely depends so nobody here is correct. For a closeup shot obviously modeling has to be top-notch, and good texturing and lighting won't be able to compensate. But for models far away, mesh itself could be shittier, texture can be low res and with a good lighting they can still look great. Arguing about which part of the pipeline is the most important is retarded by default.

>>796120
nah you're just wrong lol

>>796121
Fuck off, retard.

>>796140
Fuck off, retard.

>>796121
What is the point of this? Respond like a normal human being for once ffs.

>>796201
What is the point of this? Respond like a normal human being for once ffs.

>>796081
The windows are part of the buidling (modeling) process, idiot.

>>796214
the windows are a metaphor for light. l2pottery

>>795916
>Good lighting is something you can buy. It will be as good as the renderer you have available.
let me stop you right there, you're a complete retard
you're the equivalent of a senile grandpa who thinks shit happens by itself because its done on the computers

>>796105
false
they are all complementary
none of them is the "foundation" of the others

I like modeling.

>>795916
>Oh no, it's this retard again.
lmao he think you're me. I was posting about lighting being a literal retard job a few weeks ago.

>>796429
So there are TWO retards on this board. Even worse!

>>795839
>>795837
I never understood lights I simply model and then push my models to a game engine or make a HDRI.

Modeling for life.

>>795837
For me.
Texturing>Modeling>Lighting

I always do Lights at the end...

>>798135
lmao what a basic bitch

>>799205
how can you texture without having your lighting setup? On real world sets they adjust the level of makeup (textures) to fit the shot (lighting).

>>799284
yes but no.. bit misleading

here's the thing: textures should be created/adjusted in a neutral lookdev setup, not in a particular lighting scenario

if that's done correctly, there's no need to adjust them on a shot-per-shot basis. there's not a single professional VFX or animation studio that does that. tweaking the shots happens with set dressing and lighting, not really with surfacing.

>>799286
> textures should be created/adjusted in a neutral lookdev setup, not in a particular lighting scenario
if you texture a reflective surface in a mostly dark hdri your textures will look different than texturing with a mostly white hdri and different again in texturing in a mostly blue sky hdri.

>>799289
That's why it's done on a neutral setup, to avoid bias as much as possible.

Actually, it's done on a neutral setup, but frequently checked in varied environments. However, neutral is key.

>>799290
what is a neutral hdri on hdrihaven or built in to substance to you then

>>799291
so, nothing then? Why do you say you have to use x but then provide no actual details when questioned?

>>799289
yeah because that's not what I meant at all when I said: neutral setup

mostly dark / white / sky hdri isn't proper for a well-calibrated environment

>>799290
thank you

>>799291
just something neutral, akin to a studio setup that would happen for photography IRL

>>799293
stop being a twat

>>799293
Most of the texture 50% gray, 25% white light strips, 25% dark shadows.

>>799291
>>799293
Are you for real? This is a slow board, I'm not waiting here for replies.

Mid-gray background, plus low ambient fill for shadows, plus key + rim + fill for volume and shape, all in pure white, that you can rotate as you need. This needs to be set up so that a mid-gray patch oriented towards the camera renders as 0.18 reflective. That's your neutral setup.

>>799300
>This needs to be set up so that a mid-gray patch oriented towards the camera renders as 0.18 reflective.
wait, why is that very precise value important?
( >>799298 here, not this other doofus btw )

>>799301
It's the reflectance value of what we perceive as middle gray. A typical target in photography for setting exposure. There is a chart here with a few values: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_gray.. I'm using 0.18 because it's what corresponds to 50% lightness in ACEScg.

Pic related has the background as ~0.184, although tonemapping renders everything slightly dark.

>>799291
Tomoco studio hdri in Substance seems to be the go-to environment for a lot of artists as the lighting is pretty neutral there. There are probably better options I'm not aware of.

>>799298
>just something neutral, akin to a studio setup that would happen for photography IRL
Name me something i can download or choose, dont just give generics. What are YOU using

>>799320
im using a scene with proper settings, some basic geometry for the studio, and lights

you want my working files or what? you seem to expect some magic universal solution to fall into your lap... but lookdev isn't about what you use, it's about understanding what you do

just google it for fucks sake. stop downloading, start learning.

>>799334
>this amount of gatekeeping
exactly like i said here >>799293

>>799335
welp, you're a lost cause
seems like you can't accomplish anything on your own except lowering the bar on this forsaken board

>>799337
you have over 500 hdris on hdrihaven, and over 20 in substance yet you cant even name a single neutral one that i should use. You're trolling!

>>799335
kek this is the equivalent of someone saying you should practice anatomy and observation skills and like a mongoloid you keep going like nO i jUsT nEeD tO kNoW wHaT bRuSheS yOu'Re uSiNg REEEEE

>>799338
he clearly said to use a neutral studio setup, what more do you need? geeeeeez........

>>799341
I need a concrete name, not an abstraction

>>799343
Read my reply... >>799313

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this addressed:

We hit diminishing returns on poly count in models long ago. We're very close to hitting it with textures. Lighting currently has the biggest impact on realism, assuming that is how you're ranking things.

As graphics card were able to handle more polys, developers put the majority of them on organic objects like humans, animals, fictional creatures, etc. The main character usually had the highest poly count, because you're staring at it the most. There aren't a lot of good reasons to add more polys to, for example, a wall. Instead, normal maps and higher resolution textures are able to approximate results, and you get more bang for your bunk. But we will quickly start seeing diminishing returns as we get into 16 GB and 32 GB GPU memory.

Lighting remains the most computationally expensive, and a lot of things are currently faked like SSAO, baked lighting, indirect lighting, mirrors that don't work, and so on.

>>799335
There's enough information on this thread to at least make a basic setup for yourself. If that's not enough (and in production it wouldn't be), go here and learn: https://chrisbrejon.com/cg-cinematography/

>>799338
>yet you cant even name a single neutral one that i should use
No HDRi will give you a neutral environment just by using it. You need to also understand how to set up exposure and the proper shading for calibrating to a neutral reference.

>>799350
>>799352
stop it guys, that fucktard isn't interested in learning anything, he wants an easy quick fix that comes from a download button...

>>799352
i hear that you should leave exposure at default

>>799356
stfu

>>799357
>i hear that you should leave exposure at default
no
set an exposure value to your camera or scene according to what would make sense in the real world, for instance:
Exterior - Day: ISO 100 F5.6 1/125

>>799364
mate....the environment exposure value in substance is -10 to 10 and post effect tonemapping exposure is 0 to 2. What are you even talking about

>>799365
we were talking lookdev/rendering
in substance then yes, ideally don't touch it

>>795837
You can't have any real graphics or visual definition without textures, so texturing is definitely very high on the list of importance. Everything exists to just support the textures and make them look good and they take up the most space in video games.

>>799436
You can't have any real graphics or visual definition without light, so lighting is definitely very high on the list of importance. Everything exists to just reflect rays and make them form shapes and firing them takes up the most time during rendering.

I just paint the lighting on every texture, simple as

>>799458
Without models, textures and materials you can light up an empty space, gl.

>>799458
based and also correct

>>799436
>>799458
>>799493
This is the thread in a nutshell.

>b-b-but without light you can't see the model
>b-b-but without the model there's nothing to light
>b-b-but without the texture it's just gray values

It's clear these things depend on each other. The conversation isn't being advanced by taking it down this route. It's too chicken-and-the-egg, and it doesn't allow for ranking.

We have to define how things should be ranked, which nobody has bothered to do except maybe this anon >>799347

>>799622
protip: the egg came first

>>799622
What about the fucking C A M E R A? You're all smug about textures, models, and lights, but you forget that which is absolutely necessary in all cases: the camera!

t. Virtual cinematographer

>this many replies to a bait thread

>>799689

>>795856
Precisely. The best textures look whack if the lighting is off.

>>795855
I wont get baited

>>795837
first there has to be light, without light you can't see shit, then there is the model, then you can texture it

lighting is babby shit
modeling > texturing >>>> lighting
when it comes to skill.
I bet you everything, that every single industry artist who knows his shit in modeling or texturing knows how to light his work aswell, it really is not hard.

>>804491
>modeling > texturing
not on my watch, blendet
here how it works
texturing>>>modeling

>>804505
>blendet
nope
I've only put modeling above texturing, because of the enormous help that software offers, whereas (hard surface) modeling still needs to be planned out and executed properly and there's not necessarily a way around that. You still need good topology.
It also depends on what you plan to do.
You can bet your ass, that texturing some low poly barrel to look stylized is harder than just slapping some materials on one to look realistic. Then of course there is grundge and all that shit that has to go with envirnoment etc.
Do we count scuplting too? In that case texturing gets btfo, because it'd be 2v1 and hard surface plus sculpting requires more skill than just texturing.

Lighting is the most important for me because it makes or breaks the model and environment.

But it does make me think - if my textures look so much better with a proper lighting setup, are they good enough? Should they look great even in the most crappy lighting conditions? Sometimes I feel like I'm hiding the quality of my models with a good lighting.

I've started using Marmoset to preview my texturing, because Substance Painter has a pretty shitty lighting in comparison. I've noticed other artists doing it and it really makes a difference. But that's why I'm asking this - because sometimes I'm not a fan of my wip texture inside of SP, but when I bring it in Marmoset, it looks pretty good. And then I can't decide if it's good or bad.