HOME | DD
Artsammich — Render Styles Cheat Sheet
Published: 2015-01-23 01:09:44 +0000 UTC; Views: 46321; Favourites: 1387; Downloads: 825
Redirect to original
Description
I made this for my Schoolism classes. I've had a lot of students request a copy of this, so I made a stripped-down version for reference and then I decided to distribute it to everyone. I talk a lot more about what characterizes these styles and when they are most useful in my Fundamentals of Lighting class , and then I talk about their expressive qualities a bit more in my Lighting for Story and Concept class.Related content
Comments: 52
the hybrid cell shading kinda confusing for me.... i know its a crossection between 2d and 3d style shading... i mean how to do it thats the question
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are a few different ways to do it:
1. Flatten out lit areas but allow some form description on the shadow side
2. Flatten out shadow areas but allow some form description on the light side
3. Keep both shadow and light areas flat but slightly soften the transition between the two.
In retrospect, I wonder if those should each be different render styles.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
allow some form description? i m confuse.....
* english is not my first language
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"allow some form description" = use shading to make stuff look round. What cel-shading does is flatten out the form description, or shading, to only two values/colors. Hybrid cel-shading might keep some of that shading in the light or the shadow.
Does that make sense?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So in a way.... form description is like shading the subject and make it more 3D or apply some volume..... hybrid cel shading is shading it 3D but keep some of the 2D characteristics am i correct?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm taking the fundamentals of lighting class right now, and I'm impressed with the quality of the class. I love the sheets you did to teach, like this one. Do you have the others to download? Since I bought the self-taught I will not be able to see the videos again in the future, I understand if you can't do so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I may release more of the sheets with time, I'm still working out how to do it without compromising the integrity of the class for people who paid for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand ^^
Thank you very much and for being awesome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's been a couple of years now since I took your class (back before the name change for the fundamentals class) and to this day I still recommend it to people who ask me about learning how to look at color and start making sense of it. I keep going back to my video critiques and notes you gave me and I get refreshed every time. I still feel like I haven't applied everything I've learned yet, but I'm slowly making my way.
thanks always.
mike
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm so glad it was helpful Mike!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gotta add to share with others. Very nice "cheat sheet".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey, that's interesting.
However isn't there only one proper logic by which light really works, and that is defined by real physics and yields consistent results? Doesn't that mean that all but one of these styles are logically incorrect (i.e. principles by which they are rendered are fictional)?
If it is, then which one is the "real" one?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are correct in thinking that light behaves in only one way physically.
Where your idea fails is in perception. Our eyes do not perceive all photons equally or at once. There are usually more photons coming at your eye in a given scene than your eyes can bring into focus and compensate for at any given time. So your eyes move around, they adjust, and your brain does a fair amount of work interpreting the data your eyes send to it. Most color, for example, you calculate from many photons of various intensities and wavelength. Eyes have a wider dynamic range than most cameras, but still not perfect. Then your computer screen introduces another problem---a limited range of color and brightness from which to show these perceptions. So the experience of seeing, and then translating onto canvas, both introduce limitations on what can actually be shown of the physical reality.
Because of that, none of these are "correct." Some of the more stylized ones might be less correct, but that's the maximum distinction you can make.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
ah there enters the make the darks of your image more dark then usual for the light to be more bright, so you can archieve the effect of sunlight and stuff like that, i know a few things but this makes me think there are plenty of tricks i dont know, anyways, great talk, i love hearing this things.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for the quick reply, Sam!
Yeah, I agree about the perception part. There are numerous retina density and optical nerve bandwidth limitations.
But, from what we see, the perception, too, have evolved to be fairly similar across all people (unless they have vision problems). So that the pair physics+perception in the end behaves more or less consistently as well.
Nothing we see on the monitor, strictly speaking, 100% matches reality. That's true. However, apart from the "cartoonish" styles on this chart - how come there are several different of the more "realistic" styles in the top rows? Which of them is most close to our perception?
I suppose you explain this in-depth in your class, but I'm just too curious.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're still thinking of perception in a limited (and in my opinion, incorrect) way. The process of perception isn't a static thing like a photograph. It's dynamic and constantly shifting, compensating for relationships, etc. Once you collapse those dynamic relationships down into static relationships, like a photograph or a painting, you lose something by virtue of that collapse. For example, look at the "Compressed Range" compared to the "Key Weighted" styles. One is used to compress the total range of values closer together to create the impression of seeing all the light in the scene without loss in the falloff ranges. The other compresses the falloff ranges but preserves the distance between the light and shadows, more like the way a camera would handle exposure in a high dynamic range. Neither of these is correct: each shows a different dimension of reality, when there's more light in the scene than you can put on the canvas. And what about the perception of depth? When you're in a room, your eyes and head movements tell your brain that there is a roundness to the ball that can't possibly be recreated in a flat medium. So something like the hybrid style becomes useful, allowing you to create artificial depth when the lighting doesn't allow it. There are, of course, lots of other ways to collapse complex perception into something simple and clear on canvas. I only made this sheet as a starting point on how to think when perception, rendering, and style connect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, thanks for the explanation!
Yes, I suppose you are speaking of "perception" in a somewhat wider sense.
So these are more like different deliberate algorithms of depicting fragments of what you really see... Nice. I'll keep that in mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is going to come in handy. Thanks for putting it up!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, these help a lot! Fantastic examples you have created for the class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm taking the Fundamentals of Lighting right now. And I must say, it's a complete delight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OH GOSH MY HEART STOPPED FROM SEEING THE USEFULNESS OF THIS!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It won't be useful if you're dead though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's Okay now! my urge to reply back is what keeps me Alive. You have awoken me, Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>