It looks like you're using an ad blocker! I really need the income to keep this site running.
If you enjoy BlenderNation and you think it’s a valuable resource to the Blender community, please take a moment to read how you can support BlenderNation.

About Author

Benjamin Bailey

I am a young creative artist with a dream to conquer the world with my ideas. I love singing, writing, drawing, and modeling in 3D - and I'm ready to put these skills to use.

56 Comments

  1. I liked it with the hard shadows. You could keep the light and turn off the specularity from the sphere material menu.

  2. Johnny T-Bone on

    this option is not good enough - missing some things for example - you can't set the glow size and strenght and so on... better 3D apps (Maya, C4d, 3DS Max,...) can do it much easier and better - It's TOTALLY ILLOGICAL this effect workONLY in approximate mode - WHY ?? Who was the idiot to find it out ??? Ridicolous... Blender was my favourite 3d editor but you chke it until it will die...Bravo idiots !....

  3. @Johnny T-Bone

    Keep in mind that this is an Alpha release, not the finished product.
    I believe the developers are aware of the problems you mention.

    And calling the developers idiots is just, well, wrong...

  4. Very cool stuff, thanks for the quick intro to it. I liked your samples at the end, they already gave me a few great ideas of how to use it. Cheers!

  5. @Johnny T-Bone:

    1. you are free to buy Maya, C4D, Lightwave, 3ds max, Modo, Softimage, Houdini, whatever...
    No one is forcing you to use Blender, if you don't like it

    2. Maya, C4D, 3ds max don't do Global Illumination (in their internal renders)
    It's Mental Ray or Advanced Render that can do it. You have to pay for this implicitly or explicitly.

    3. Calling people who work for you without payment "idiots" won't motivate them. You should
    be gratefull and thank them, for improving OSS software you can use.

    4. If you think you can do it better, then download the source and start coding!

  6. Guys, let's just ignore those people, however I hope this is just a first step towards a real Indirect lighting system. Obviously this is cool, but not enough yet. :)

  7. In my opinion this is not indirect lighting. Rather it is glowing material. Like area light wrapped around a sphere.
    With IL you could see faces that are not hit directly by light from a light source but from (diffuse) reflections.

  8. True... Maya, C4D, 3DS Max... can't do GI. They have to use external renderers.. Much like Blender can with VRAY.

    Download the Graphicall.org builds...RenderBranch25, or just recent Blender Builds... and you can use Indirect Lighting with Raytracing, rather than just Approximate. It's great.

    Oh and if you adjust the Emit factor, using Raytracing (if you'd like to get some more accurate Internal Renderer basic GI - yes Blender now has basic yet stunning GI), you can easily effect the glow size and strength... There are some other options to adjust glow and strength too...

    Have fun.

  9. Big thanks to the developers team, your are making me happy everyday I use blender "or any open source software" by discovering new features and following the development process step by step, it's not a tool, it's a community and a way of life. Really thanks

  10. He Johnny. Criticisms when done well helps a lot. But I think that the way you did your post showed that you are the idiot. Tell the software developpers you mention to give you their last release for free. If free software like Blender were not there, I would have never enjoy to be able to make 3D.
    Big thanks to the developpers, can't wait to see what you kept for us in the first Beta release :).

  11. @Johnny T-Bone

    Sorry buddy, but you look like a hard screaming teenager... I have worked with Max since DOS times, when it was named as 3D Studio then. And it's core does not changed a lot till today, (No Changes in 20 Years ???? What a fail...) I can list here a number of "idiotic solutions" available in Max and Maya and others. There's no perfect software ( except Blender of course :) ). Blender is open and free. It's brigs great results, is constantly evolving and that's one of the main reasons why I switched from 3Dmax to Blender.Everyone can participate in it's development, everyone can use it, everyone can support it. You miss a feature ? Go and make it.

  12. Actually, the Render Branch of Blender has Raytraced IDL, so don't complain about that yet.

    I liked this tutorial, but I must say one thing. I tried to go into blender and up the RGB values like you said, and it worked, but it didn't affect the lighting in the scene (everything was still black). I had to turn up the emit value a lot to make the object glow.

  13. comeinandburn on

    Great Job Developers!!! yet another awesome feature that made it into our favourite software.

    Way to Go!!!!!!!!

  14. @db: Yes, I quite agree with you, currently what we are seeing is NOT indirect lighting, but the fact that we can use mesh as lamp (and then have more realistics shadows and so on), but in indirect lighting, we need to have surfaces which does not see the light directly lit by the indirects bounces.

    For thoses who do not understood what we are talking about, take a look at this image : http://guillaume.apinc.org/cornel/cornel_00:05.png it is a cornel box rendered with luxrender (can be any GI renderer). Take a look on the ceiling, it is lit by the bounces of the light beams from the top light, but the top light does not directly lit the ceiling.

    Try to do this with blender, currently (svn up from this morning) you get a black ceiling.

    But BTW, removing the limitation of using only "blender light" to lit a scene is a great step forward and will ease the convertion of scene between blender internal and externals renderers.

    Keep going devs ;) !

  15. Wow, thanks for all the comments!

    @Dimetrii: Probably because I didn't have any objects to cast shadows onto our little box's walls.
    @marwin: Agreed! :D
    @Gr8!: Coolness :) I had the lamp in there by accident.
    @Johnny T-Bone: Hmmm... well, I do agree that it takes some test renders to know what your results will be, but a lot of things take test renders (or test bakes - yikes!) But considering how well Blender is moving along in development, I think bug reports would be much more useful than complaints.
    @Gnuren: Yes, you are right.
    @Dan: Awesome,! :) Thanks!
    @Flagus: Users have a right to yell at their devs, after all, our loyalty should be to the usefulness of the application, not the name. And don't get me wrong, obviously I love Blender.
    @Paulomat: Hey, thanks for the info! I didn't know Maya, Lightwave, etc., did not have GI built in.
    @Akta: I agree! There's a lot I did not go into, simply because I'm new to it, myself.
    @db: Agreed. Thus my note that "...this little tutorial will show you how to add mesh lights..."
    @SiriusBlack: Thanks! I will have to try the RenderBranch. I know Pablo Vasquez used IL with some recent test renders, and the raytracing looked a LOT better.
    @milhoud: Agreed!
    @Arco: Awesome! That's what I like to hear :D
    @simon.void: Thanks! :) That was my very first video tutorial, EVER. This is my second. :D
    @CGEX: Thanks for the insight! It's hard not to wonder what we're missing when schools teach Lightwave and Maya, and resumes for studio positions look better with a commercial program on it.
    @Bart: Haha, I'll try not to!
    @Dor: Kudos to the dev team! And thanks!
    @A saurus1: Did you know your username is hard to type? Anyhow, yeah... you definitely need the emit value to make it glow, but the colors pushed way past the norms helps, too. Just try some test renders with the emit the same and the color values at different ranges.
    @comeinandburn: Agreed! Way to go!

    @all:Thanks everybody! I am so glad you liked my work and the feature!

    See ya next time! ;)

  16. Banor I didn't mean that your tutorial wasn't enough, I was talking about the indirect light system we have right now in Blender :) However I'm very confident we'll get very cool stuff from developers in the future versions!

  17. @banor
    Really? I wonder why.
    I've been playing around with the IL and it's really cool. (I also saw your other tut. Very Nice.)

    Anyway, I was playing around, and I found out that you can also use the approximate IL to 'bounce' light off objects. So if I have a Sphere below a plane and a spot light between them pointing down, the plane will be lit with light bounced off the sphere.

  18. @Akta: Oh, alright. :) Thanks. :D
    @A saurus1: It's just like any username, except I found it a bit harder to remember as I would look up, try to memorize how to spell it, then come down to reply to your comment. No offense intended, just a note. Thanks! Very nice. I tried to get that to work with a bounce of 1, using a plane to "bounce" my the light from my sphere into the box - but it didn't work. The light from the sphere bled through the box, even when I removed the plane. So, yeah, I have a lot more testing to do :D

  19. @banor
    Ok. I'm using a recent build, that might be the reason.

    Anyway, it's very faint, but you can still sort of make it out.
    Here's my setup:
    http://tinypic.com/r/flbj1j/5

    I think when the render branch merges back with the trunk, and we get Raytraced IDL in blender, it will work better. Right now, it doesn't even combine the light color with the Material color.

  20. @A saurus1: Ah, OK. I thought about finding a RenderBranch build. I didn't find one on Graphical.org ;(

    All I see from your link is a Blender screenshot. But yeah, >ding! light goes on in his head< I see... using a (spot) lamp with IL will cause it to bounce off... not just with mesh lights. My bad! You see, I have a lot to learn! Well, you are right, but still, that would be getting into something similar to radiocity (not sure?) which hasn't been introduced back into the trunk yet, sadly.

  21. I think it would be radiocity, or at least very close. I was un-aware that they were planing on adding it back in.

  22. @ banor and A saurus1:
    As far as I know, IL is basically the replacement for Radiosity. And it's much faster and (if finished in coding, probably) also more realistic :)

  23. @bautz: Yes, it is! Thanks to the devs and bug reporters!
    @kram2301: Ah, well, you see how much I know! :) That's awesome! I look forward to learning more about IL.

  24. So, is this a re-implementation of radiosity or what? If so, I'm not sure what everyone is creaming themselves about. Pretty? Yes. New? I don't feel like checking, but wasn't this implemented back around 2.0?

    Then again, this could be completely different for all I know. In that case, what's the point in this if it's just like radiosity?

  25. @micro16: Agreed :)
    @greyspot: Even if it is radiosity being introduced into the trunk again (or a new type of radiocity,) it's still something to cheer about: having a great feature return to a great program.

  26. Firstly I would like to thank Banor for taking the time to produce another very useful and informative video "how to" tutorial. It's people like Banor that have kept me using Blender for ten years or so.

    In this time there have been frustrations along the way but we get this with all good things in life (yes even Blender). However, there are very few applications out there (if any now) where you can talk to the developers, even Ton, busy chap that he obviously is, to find solutions either directly or through our community.

    This is the first time I have found the time in my busy schedule to post a message and it is because of Johnny T-Bones comments above.

    I will be more polite than Mr.T-Bone in replying to his post by giving him a little advice from a middle aged old fart.

    1. You get nothing in life by speaking to anyone as you have in your post.

    2. You cannot spell and use very poor grammar to elaborate your strongly held views.

    3. I think you may have problems with your hormones (is it your time of the month?)

    4. Perhaps you have too much meat in your diet (T-Bone).

    Finally thank you to Ton and all the developers out there for your continued hard graft. I for one have always been humbly and sincerely grateful........

  27. Patrick Latour on

    Wow, I learned more about light in this tutorial than in any other, and just in five minutes. I love it when I find a tutorial like this. You made my day. Thanks a lot !!!

  28. @Phil: Wow, haha, thanks! I agree, Ton is pretty awesome. :D When I saw such a long comment I was like "Oh great, a long list of things for me to fix." But I was pleasantly surprised to find a more complimentary reply. Thank you for giving T-Bone some advice. :) Yes, thanks, devs!
    @Patrick Latour: W00t! Awesome. :D Thanks for the great comment!

  29. Quite very sweet! I hadn't yet figured out IL--I didn't really look at it enough to realize it was radiosity-like. Now that I get it, it seems rather simpler than the old radiosity system. I build my own copy of Blender, and the most recent version of the main branch still doesn't have raytrace IL working. The render25 branch does, though. There are several render25 builds on GraphicAll but most seem to be for Mac OS. They're listed under Experimental or Others. For some reason there was only one for Windows (which I gather you were using, from your cursor shape :P), so here's a link. Maybe they put it up just for you^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbecause you mentioned it? :P

    http://www.graphicall.org/builds/builds/showbuild.php?action=show&id=1320

    Your tutorial was very clear and concise. Well-thought-out. I really liked how you explained less obvious things you were doing, like the scaling-about-cursor, shift-Z grab and such. I see people using little tricks like that in tutorials and I've picked up or figured out a lot of them, but it's easier when they're mentioned (occasionally, I notice people NOT using tricks, which bugs me). Looking really efficient while teaching how to be efficient really makes Blender look as efficient as it really is.

    By the way: this isn't terribly important (but related to above thing about not using tricks :P), but ctrl-drag to snap to grid would have been helpful in placing the sphere on the floor more exactly. (Since it's an icosphere you don't have to worry about two faces being in the same plane.) That said, I probably severely over-use grid snapping.

    And finally, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this: @Johnny T-Bone, Dude, chill. It's an alpha release. It wasn't an idea to make it work only in approximate mode. It just hadn't been implemented yet. Not that you'll probably ever even read this page again, seeing as you haven't even posted a second time.

    Phew. Late-night long posts, what fun /notsarcasm :). So, maybe BlenderNation needs a "Blender 2.5 Tutorialette of the Day"? That would be gnarlawesomrad :D

    P.S. I'm the same Anon that posted on the story about [dot]Blend Magz 02 with your interview. I fairly recently went back and checked that (had had it bookmarked), but didn't bother to reply since it was ages ago. Anyhow, I didn't mean to say anything about religion or monologues or anything like that (in fact I often quite enjoy such monologues, including yours). I was just talking about more academic-y things--I'm not big into art, music, etc. like you (I do like photography and obviously 3D art, though). That said, I can evidently write me up a meaan (if a bit hard to follow) comment when I have stuff to say! But please feel no need to write a long reply to this. I would feel bad.

    Edit: Oh my goodness; I think that is the longest post I have ever seen on BlenderNation.

  30. @Anon: Nope, I didn't ask for it. And I was using a standard revision release - and I didn't have raytracing working for me, either. But yes, I was using Windows!

    No, I didn't use that build.

    Thanks! I strive to be efficient. I hate long menus and popup windows, so I learn the hotkeys.

    Interesting, thanks! I haven't gotten into the habit of using Snapping. I constrain objects to the grid sometimes (simple grid incremental snapping,) but I'm not into snapping to vertices. And it was a UVsphere, not an Icosphere.

    I think someone did mention it was an alpha release. Yes, Gnuren mentioned it. (Besides my mentioning it in my post and tutorial.)

    Haha. Maybe. Tutorials take quite a bit of time to make, you know. One a day isn't very practical, unless you had a team of users working on the project.

    Ah, alright. I might remember a comment of some sort, but I didn't remember it before you mentioned it. FEEL BAD. LOL. Joking. :)

    Haha... possibly!

  31. Ah. Somehow I didn't see Gnuren's post. Anyhow, yes, but I'll bet the internet is full of people who would like to make tutorials for BlenderNation! But there are probably enough tutorial sources out there as it is :P Just a random thought.

  32. @Chmplv: You're very welcome! ;)
    @Anon: No worries. True, very true. And yes, there are a lot of sources out there. You're not too random, though, because I had a similar thought :) Just not as many tutorials. :D Anyhow, I might pitch the idea.

  33. Blender need some fresh guys like you,
    I can feel that I will learn a lot from you.
    I like you tuition style you are clear
    in your statement just like kernon dillon (the allmighty).

    Look forward for your other tutorials.
    Thank you very much.

  34. wow this is amazing! ever since I saw the first demo of indirect lightning in Blender I tried to make it work for me too but somehow it didn't work =S thanks to your tutorial I finally know how it works =D but does this means blender uses 32bpc for colors now or not? I'm also surprised how fast this renders. I thought it would take ages to render but it's just a litle bit slower than with normal lights.

  35. @pixnolve: Thank you very much! I'm glad you like my work and you can look forward to future tutorials from me :D Yes, Dillon makes great tutorials.
    @glenn: You're very welcome! Hmmm, cool :) I'm curious how you made the animate texture (movie texture?) have an emit value. And it looked like the texture was being project from the camera's view?
    @iCandy: Isn't it! Ah, I understand. Getting things to work can be tricky. Great. :) I'm not sure if Blender has hdr rendering capabilities yet, but I think it does (something with openEXR?) And with my moving the colors beyond the normal range of 1, I don't know if it actually pushes it past the color boundary, it just made my results more intense. Yep, it's pretty fast!

  36. @iCandy: Of course, Blender can use HDR images for reflections and for realistic lighting, but I'm not sure about it rendering images out with 32bpc (can openEXR handle that high of a color range?)

  37. @ben
    Yes, It is a movie texture with an emit value - same parameters for all other light objects.....quick and dirty^^
    The movie texture is a short rec from the Screensaver GLmatrix (linux box).

  38. @glenn: Very awesome, thanks. I'll have to give movie textures a go. And your innovation of recording that screensaver and trying emit with it (and it working without masking out the black background from the green letters,) is really cool. Keep at it!

  39. Hi, I´m not an anglo speaker, so, be comprensive.

    Your tutorial was very helpfull for my, I am new in the 3d model word, and, Blender is the first 3D Software what I use. It look's good, it´s a little complex for my, but it isn´t imposible.

    Thanks.

Leave A Reply

To add a profile picture to your message, register your email address with Gravatar.com. To protect your email address, create an account on BlenderNation and log in when posting a message.