Lighting for the filament of a lightbulb












2














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










share|improve this question


















  • 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


















2














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










share|improve this question


















  • 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
















2












2








2







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










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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
















  • 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










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












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














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.



Tynaud’s Neon



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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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





















4














simple emission shader with warm black body



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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









4














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.



Tynaud’s Neon



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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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


















4














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.



Tynaud’s Neon



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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
















4












4








4






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.



Tynaud’s Neon



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.






share|improve this answer












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.



Tynaud’s Neon



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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 17 at 23:28









troy_s

9,70922456




9,70922456












  • 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










  • @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















4














simple emission shader with warm black body



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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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
















4














simple emission shader with warm black body



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.






share|improve this answer























  • 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














4












4








4






simple emission shader with warm black body



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.






share|improve this answer














simple emission shader with warm black body



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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 18 at 18:18

























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


















  • 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


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Alcedinidae

RAC Tourist Trophy