Lighting for the filament of a lightbulb
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I want the light of the filament of a lightbulb to cast an orange glow on the objects around it, but I want the actual filament to be a bright white. What can I do? I am not experienced with Blender
light lighting
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
add a comment |
I want the light of the filament of a lightbulb to cast an orange glow on the objects around it, but I want the actual filament to be a bright white. What can I do? I am not experienced with Blender
light lighting
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
3
Possible duplicate of Making an Emission shader emit a different colour of light than the colour assigned to the object?
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
blender.stackexchange.com/questions/53359/…
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
Related: blender.stackexchange.com/q/15669/599
– gandalf3♦
Dec 26 at 13:45
add a comment |
I want the light of the filament of a lightbulb to cast an orange glow on the objects around it, but I want the actual filament to be a bright white. What can I do? I am not experienced with Blender
light lighting
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
I want the light of the filament of a lightbulb to cast an orange glow on the objects around it, but I want the actual filament to be a bright white. What can I do? I am not experienced with Blender
light lighting
light lighting
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
asked Dec 17 at 22:13
Aragon Buckle
111
111
3
Possible duplicate of Making an Emission shader emit a different colour of light than the colour assigned to the object?
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
blender.stackexchange.com/questions/53359/…
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
Related: blender.stackexchange.com/q/15669/599
– gandalf3♦
Dec 26 at 13:45
add a comment |
3
Possible duplicate of Making an Emission shader emit a different colour of light than the colour assigned to the object?
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
blender.stackexchange.com/questions/53359/…
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
Related: blender.stackexchange.com/q/15669/599
– gandalf3♦
Dec 26 at 13:45
3
3
Possible duplicate of Making an Emission shader emit a different colour of light than the colour assigned to the object?
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
Possible duplicate of Making an Emission shader emit a different colour of light than the colour assigned to the object?
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
blender.stackexchange.com/questions/53359/…
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
blender.stackexchange.com/questions/53359/…
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
Related: blender.stackexchange.com/q/15669/599
– gandalf3♦
Dec 26 at 13:45
Related: blender.stackexchange.com/q/15669/599
– gandalf3♦
Dec 26 at 13:45
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Probably best to understand that the “white” in the core you are used to seeing isn’t “white” in most instances, but rather a particular colour.
We have grown to think that there is “white” at the core of many high emission objects due to learned aesthetics that largely stem from photographs. Candles, which are distinctly orangey, fires, the sun, etc. are all captured on film as blown out, which after adaptation, is a neutral white.
In raytracing, if you use a decent camera rendering transform, you can lean on it to generate exactly what you are hoping for. A wonderful example here is from Tynaud’s neon demonstration.
As you can see, the colour emitted is a rather saturated blue, yet the core naturally overexposes to a blown out white.
Lean on a good camera rendering transform and have your emission high enough.
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
add a comment |
This is a simple example of how to do it properly. Note that it also works for lamps (you can make them warmer or cooler with a blackbody node).
The intensity of the emission shader will depend on the size of the object. If you make a really small filament it will be really high (like 10 times the intensity of a point lamp) and it will be a festival of fireflies, but you get the point :-)
Doing it this way will give you the white core for free with filmic, and other effects also come for free: You can add a glare node in the compositor with the threshold set to a value close to the intensity of the shader, and it will make only the filament glow.
Keep in mind that, as Troy just said, the colour of the filament isn't really white, but the high intensity exceeding the capabilities of a camera means it will get clipped to white. That's a learned aesthetics from photography that we grew up seeing, and that's what Filmic Blender emulates, desaturating colours as they reach the clipping limit of the transform.
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "502"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fblender.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126423%2flighting-for-the-filament-of-a-lightbulb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Probably best to understand that the “white” in the core you are used to seeing isn’t “white” in most instances, but rather a particular colour.
We have grown to think that there is “white” at the core of many high emission objects due to learned aesthetics that largely stem from photographs. Candles, which are distinctly orangey, fires, the sun, etc. are all captured on film as blown out, which after adaptation, is a neutral white.
In raytracing, if you use a decent camera rendering transform, you can lean on it to generate exactly what you are hoping for. A wonderful example here is from Tynaud’s neon demonstration.
As you can see, the colour emitted is a rather saturated blue, yet the core naturally overexposes to a blown out white.
Lean on a good camera rendering transform and have your emission high enough.
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
add a comment |
Probably best to understand that the “white” in the core you are used to seeing isn’t “white” in most instances, but rather a particular colour.
We have grown to think that there is “white” at the core of many high emission objects due to learned aesthetics that largely stem from photographs. Candles, which are distinctly orangey, fires, the sun, etc. are all captured on film as blown out, which after adaptation, is a neutral white.
In raytracing, if you use a decent camera rendering transform, you can lean on it to generate exactly what you are hoping for. A wonderful example here is from Tynaud’s neon demonstration.
As you can see, the colour emitted is a rather saturated blue, yet the core naturally overexposes to a blown out white.
Lean on a good camera rendering transform and have your emission high enough.
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
add a comment |
Probably best to understand that the “white” in the core you are used to seeing isn’t “white” in most instances, but rather a particular colour.
We have grown to think that there is “white” at the core of many high emission objects due to learned aesthetics that largely stem from photographs. Candles, which are distinctly orangey, fires, the sun, etc. are all captured on film as blown out, which after adaptation, is a neutral white.
In raytracing, if you use a decent camera rendering transform, you can lean on it to generate exactly what you are hoping for. A wonderful example here is from Tynaud’s neon demonstration.
As you can see, the colour emitted is a rather saturated blue, yet the core naturally overexposes to a blown out white.
Lean on a good camera rendering transform and have your emission high enough.
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
Probably best to understand that the “white” in the core you are used to seeing isn’t “white” in most instances, but rather a particular colour.
We have grown to think that there is “white” at the core of many high emission objects due to learned aesthetics that largely stem from photographs. Candles, which are distinctly orangey, fires, the sun, etc. are all captured on film as blown out, which after adaptation, is a neutral white.
In raytracing, if you use a decent camera rendering transform, you can lean on it to generate exactly what you are hoping for. A wonderful example here is from Tynaud’s neon demonstration.
As you can see, the colour emitted is a rather saturated blue, yet the core naturally overexposes to a blown out white.
Lean on a good camera rendering transform and have your emission high enough.
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
answered Dec 17 at 23:28
troy_s
9,70822456
9,70822456
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
add a comment |
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
as pointed out by @Gez, and this answer, mine was so wrong, it had to go..
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:04
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
@RobinBetts It wasn't so wrong actually. It was an approach that produced the intended result but being a "hack" it wasn't the most appropriate for realism.
– Gez
Dec 18 at 0:20
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
I completely agree. It produces the correct result. The only issue is that in some instances, the solutions can accumulate into problems that require more solutions. In all fairness, it is an extremely common thing to work around as we have been living in the dark ages of camera rendering transforms for a long, long time.
– troy_s
Dec 18 at 0:51
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
Part of the reason why this "looks correct" is that our eyes actually experience a similar non-linear saturation effect. Almost any sufficiently bright light source that's not purely monochromatic will look white(ish) when viewed directly, simply due to being bright enough across the whole visible spectrum to saturate all photoreceptors exposed to it.
– Ilmari Karonen
Dec 18 at 4:10
add a comment |
This is a simple example of how to do it properly. Note that it also works for lamps (you can make them warmer or cooler with a blackbody node).
The intensity of the emission shader will depend on the size of the object. If you make a really small filament it will be really high (like 10 times the intensity of a point lamp) and it will be a festival of fireflies, but you get the point :-)
Doing it this way will give you the white core for free with filmic, and other effects also come for free: You can add a glare node in the compositor with the threshold set to a value close to the intensity of the shader, and it will make only the filament glow.
Keep in mind that, as Troy just said, the colour of the filament isn't really white, but the high intensity exceeding the capabilities of a camera means it will get clipped to white. That's a learned aesthetics from photography that we grew up seeing, and that's what Filmic Blender emulates, desaturating colours as they reach the clipping limit of the transform.
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
add a comment |
This is a simple example of how to do it properly. Note that it also works for lamps (you can make them warmer or cooler with a blackbody node).
The intensity of the emission shader will depend on the size of the object. If you make a really small filament it will be really high (like 10 times the intensity of a point lamp) and it will be a festival of fireflies, but you get the point :-)
Doing it this way will give you the white core for free with filmic, and other effects also come for free: You can add a glare node in the compositor with the threshold set to a value close to the intensity of the shader, and it will make only the filament glow.
Keep in mind that, as Troy just said, the colour of the filament isn't really white, but the high intensity exceeding the capabilities of a camera means it will get clipped to white. That's a learned aesthetics from photography that we grew up seeing, and that's what Filmic Blender emulates, desaturating colours as they reach the clipping limit of the transform.
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
add a comment |
This is a simple example of how to do it properly. Note that it also works for lamps (you can make them warmer or cooler with a blackbody node).
The intensity of the emission shader will depend on the size of the object. If you make a really small filament it will be really high (like 10 times the intensity of a point lamp) and it will be a festival of fireflies, but you get the point :-)
Doing it this way will give you the white core for free with filmic, and other effects also come for free: You can add a glare node in the compositor with the threshold set to a value close to the intensity of the shader, and it will make only the filament glow.
Keep in mind that, as Troy just said, the colour of the filament isn't really white, but the high intensity exceeding the capabilities of a camera means it will get clipped to white. That's a learned aesthetics from photography that we grew up seeing, and that's what Filmic Blender emulates, desaturating colours as they reach the clipping limit of the transform.
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
This is a simple example of how to do it properly. Note that it also works for lamps (you can make them warmer or cooler with a blackbody node).
The intensity of the emission shader will depend on the size of the object. If you make a really small filament it will be really high (like 10 times the intensity of a point lamp) and it will be a festival of fireflies, but you get the point :-)
Doing it this way will give you the white core for free with filmic, and other effects also come for free: You can add a glare node in the compositor with the threshold set to a value close to the intensity of the shader, and it will make only the filament glow.
Keep in mind that, as Troy just said, the colour of the filament isn't really white, but the high intensity exceeding the capabilities of a camera means it will get clipped to white. That's a learned aesthetics from photography that we grew up seeing, and that's what Filmic Blender emulates, desaturating colours as they reach the clipping limit of the transform.
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
edited Dec 18 at 18:18
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
answered Dec 18 at 0:08
Gez
1,852618
1,852618
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
add a comment |
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
Thanks for your remark, but... I worked for over a decade in yer actual film, up to my elbows in chemicals, and then I came up with an answer like that! :D
– Robin Betts
Dec 18 at 0:31
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Blender Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fblender.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126423%2flighting-for-the-filament-of-a-lightbulb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Possible duplicate of Making an Emission shader emit a different colour of light than the colour assigned to the object?
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
blender.stackexchange.com/questions/53359/…
– Duarte Farrajota Ramos
Dec 18 at 0:01
Related: blender.stackexchange.com/q/15669/599
– gandalf3♦
Dec 26 at 13:45