[HDR-photo] New to the list

[Nigel Harniman]

Hi Mark
Its good to hear a voice of reason in an industry full of hype &
interesting to hear your views.
Re your observation on "CGI in a box" - you could count me in as one of
the unsuspecting a few years back.
Re the AIR-CGI change - the disbanding came about due to a change in
work practises, as you suggested in your comments regarding workflow,
and with this change came about a change of personnel and name.
Nice idea to alter the ART VPS link, but as air-cgi does not use
RenderDrive, think that is unlikely!

Nigel 
 
web: http://www.harniman.com/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: listmail at mab3d.com [mailto:listmail at mab3d.com] 
Sent: 15 March 2007 19:02
To: nigel at harniman.com; High Dynamic Range Photography
Subject: Re: [HDR-photo] New to the list


On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:49 AM, Nigel Harniman wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I have been working in the field of CGI for over two years now & the 
> reality of the situation is that spherical HDRI are useful, but not 
> essential to the CG artist.

Absolutely true. Having been a CGI artist for over 15 years in the  
North American print advertising market, I can attest that there are  
*lots* of different ways to reach photorealism in CGI, and that HDR  
for image-based lighting was only "the flavor of the month" in  
2002-2003. These days it is just a part of a much larger and more  
complex workflow, even though there are plenty of companies hoping to  
sell "CGI in a box" to the unsuspecting.

Still, the post-processing of HDR images into lower-bit images (by  
tonemapping, etc.) has become more important for the CGI artist to  
understand, as our renderers and compositing software can now work  
almost entirely in 32-bit, and there are significant gains to be made  
in image quality for those who understand HDR beyond the  
oversimplified "light probe" idea.

> There is a lot of hype surrounding CGI in the car market - we haven't 
> re-invented the wheel - it is just another tool in the box. An
> expensive
> tool at that on a shot rate basis compared to 'conventional'
> photography.
> The Americans were there in CG cars way before us & many have come &
> gone.

As one of the Americans involved (and still around) I can also say  
that HDR and CG shouldn't be any more expensive than a conventional  
shoot. In fact, we started doing it because it was tremendously  
cheaper than conventional photography in those situations that  
warrant it (impossible locations, pre-production prototypes, etc.)  
Today it seems that many are simply enamored of the whole "3D  
photoshoot" and use it even when a photograph and retouching (both  
still a part of really good CGI) would easily do better on their own.  
The only upside is that 3D hard- and software makers have yet another  
market to keep them in business, and HDR has more "cachet" (and  
tools) than it did back when I started using it.

-Mark

BTW, I like the work you did with AIR, Nigel. But I'm confused about  
air-cgi.com, since on www.airender.com it says the same group  
disbanded. Maybe you should have the ARTVPS folks link to that  
hyphenated site instead.

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/722 - Release Date:
14/03/2007 15:38
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date:
15/03/2007 11:27