Dear all,

It is often the case that we need to visualise in capture custom surfaces and in general strange objects.

In the actual field by using any of the well known lighting techniques, hidden/back projection/cyclorama/internal and so on, we reach the expected result. Now, when it comes to computer visualisation, where the above expected result needs to be seen, we must not forget to build to that exactly as we did in reality.
In other words, it would be best to choose from the capture libraries exactly the type and amount of lights used in action and focus them correctly.

Inspired by a scenario from another recent post, where we want to visualise a shpere lit from the inside, the best thing to do is actually place the same type and quantity of fixtures inside it. We could add, and we will, a custom rgb-self illuminated sphere in our libraries, allowing control of the sizes of it by the user, but what if it is not rgb or on top of that if it is not a sphere...it doesn't end...

So a suggestion is the use of capture as a depiction of your installation so that everything is real and not fantastic or a trick to cheat the eye. We are aware that there are limitations when using a software to "capture" the real world, but we are constantly working on the graphics and the libraries to provide as close a match as we can at each point.

Finally, when the above thinking is adopted, there are more chances of performing tests which will save you time of how it will look like before installing it, and also the paperwork is always correct...

Looking forward for your thoughts,


kindest regards,

Vangelis Manolis


ps in reality there is a limited number of fixtures and an unlimited arrangement of objects, so it is feasible and more straight forward simply to have up to date libraries providing the tools for any design imagined.