Glare Effects in Superfly



  • Greetings Poser users!

    I've been exploring ways to combine Substance Painter's exported textures with Poser's Physical Surface root node and have found it to work quite well indeed. Recently I've been expanding my textures to include emissive materials, and to test these I've been using Substance Painter's own Post Effects (by YEBIS) as well as its internal render (Iray). I have been much impressed by the glare effects produced around the emissive parts of my textures.

    I started my search for something similar at various Blender sites, as these tend to be better documented than Poser sites, and noticed that Blender seems to have a seperate Compositor feature that takes care of these matters (including an obviously named Glare node). I was unfortunately unable to find anything of the sort in Poser, but perhaps I'm not looking in the right places.

    Thinking I might be able to get a similar effect if the lights had something in the 'air' to interact with I did some experiments with the Atmosphere in Poser to see if I could get a 'glow' effect of sorts from mesh lights, but that wasn't particularly succesful and required rather dense Atmosphere settings to have a meaningful effect - which naturally has a lot of (unwanted) side-effects in other parts of a scene.

    Is there something I'm overlooking, or is this something that Poser (Superfly) can't do?



  • @adosity you mention a 'Glare node'. Is the effect you're after possibly related to 'lens flare'?

    Wiki screen shot:
    0_1502364655668_Screen Shot 2017-08-10 at 9.28.04 pm.png

    where side-bounce is causing some total internal reflection in the lens system and giving the appearance of translucent, coloured discs offset along an axis? Or a light bloom type over-exposure effect (seen at the upper left of the CCTV camera image above?



  • @anomalaus Thanks for your clarifying questions. I'm a bit of a novice so the terms I use might not be entirely accurate. That said, I don't think it's lens flare. The bloom of over-exposure is probably more accurate.

    You can see the Blender Compositor at work here (timestamp included, at 1:15 in case it fails):

    The Glare Node in Blender's Compositor is shown here: https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?383127-My-cube-doesn-t-want-to-glow-(2-70-cycles-volumetric)

    And here's an image of the effect in Substance Painter. The above shows a simple white ring (base colour and emissive only) on a metal surface, the second is with Post Effect enabled, specifically the Glare option. The third is the same effect, but pushed to (near) maximum settings; this to help illustrate the effect.

    Glare effect in Substance Painter


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @adosity - AFAIK that bloom in Yebis is a 2D post-process effect; you can get the same result from a Poser render but would have to use an external image editor. To render it in Poser I think you'd need to use volumetrics/atmosphere.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @caisson said in Glare Effects in Superfly:

    but would have to use an external image editor.

    Inaccurate. That's an option not a "have to".

    I'm doing a render to demo, but riddle me this first:

    I'm telling you I can do atmospheric glow without atmosphere (volume scatter) and without postwork.

    There - can you guess how?


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Note - the options to do this in FireFly rival that of the built-in postwork on other tools.

    For SuperFly it's rather more limited but still far more than nothing at all.

    I wrote a thread on this something like 8 years ago. The word "lens" is in the solution.

    Does that help?


  • Poser Ambassadors

    This is a straight render from SuperFly, no postwork.

    0_1502394754206_ee6ea1a7-cf9a-4c46-946b-19945b3273a1-image.png


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Artistic Lens thread from Renderosity??


  • Poser Ambassadors

    This is the thread I was thinking of ...


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Yep. Same trick. I placed a one-sided square in front of the camera, and used a MixClosure of a rough RefractBsdf and a TransparentBsdf.



  • @bagginsbill That's really interesting, thank you very much.

    I did some additional searching and, now using better search terms, found a brief a discussion about doing the same thing in Blender: https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/15669/glow-with-depth-in-blender

    Halfway down the page there's some discussion about the merits of using planes or very thin cubes. I'll experiment a bit to see which looks better to me.

    I'm not near my Poser PC at the moment, but I suspect that one would also have to take care to minimize lighting behind the camera to avoid reflections on the camera-side of the plane/cube.

    Anyway, plenty to experiment with. Thanks a lot!



  • It's been a while since I've experimented with this, and I'm running into an issue which I hope someone can help me correct. To test, I've placed six objects in the base Construct and given them a basic light material.

    I've placed a thin box (2% on Z-axis) and a one-sided square in front of a Dolly Camera set up as such (should it matter):

    Camera settings

    Both the box and the one-sided square have this material:

    Material settings

    Using only the box, I get this:

    Box render

    Using only the one-sided square, I get this:

    Square render

    I positioned the box and the one-sided square a small bit in front of the camera, such that they show up in the preview window (-8.0 in inches or so). I've also moved both of them slightly down (about -1.5 for the square and -4 for the box) because if I don't they only cover the top half of the screen (the anchor seems to be on the bottom of the object).

    Changing the IOR on the Refraction Node moves the duplications of the glowing objects along that Z-axis. At IOR 1.00 they overlap with the actual object, such that there are no duplications (at which point roughness doesn't seem to matter either, as there doesn't seem to be anything to make rougher). Otherwise Roughness would make the duplications, well, more blurry.

    This situations means that using the 'lens' in front of the camera works well so long as the object is straight in front of the camera, but is rather unusable in somewhat complex scenes where there are lights in different places of the image, as they turn into something resembling those photos with a long shutter-time taken while zooming out on the lens.

    I'd appreciate some suggestions.



  • Just to prove once more that writing a post asking for some assistance is a good idea to organize some thoughts.

    I put put a Lightpath 'Is Camera Ray' node into the MixClosure's Fac and that seems to have gotten rid of the duplicate.

    The IOR setting still alters the location of the items (when comparing setup to render), and IOR at 1.00 still gets rid of any blurring.

    But with IOR at 1.05 and Roughness at 0.02 or so it's pretty close to what I've been trying to get.

    The thing is, when used in a more complex scene this seems to make everything blurry. So that's obviously not good either. Any ideas on to make this work would be welcome!

    Lightpath Node


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Bad news. I can't get refraction roughness to do anything anymore. Looks like Poser 11 SR 1 has introduced a bug where somebody accidentally disconnected this parameter.

    Refraction roughness (i.e. blurry refractions) was the essence of how I did this.

    Note that your double image was caused by setting a blending factor of 50% - when I did this, the blurred refraction was more like 10% and the main, transparent image was 90%.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @adosity said in Glare Effects in Superfly:

    I put put a Lightpath 'Is Camera Ray' node into the MixClosure's Fac and that seems to have gotten rid of the duplicate.

    This was a mistake as the whole point was to keep 90% of the sharp image and 10% of the blurry image. Instead you completely got rid of one of them.



  • Thanks for your responses.

    @bagginsbill said in Glare Effects in Superfly:

    I can't get refraction roughness to do anything anymore. Looks like Poser 11 SR 1 has introduced a bug where somebody accidentally disconnected this parameter. Refraction roughness (i.e. blurry refractions) was the essence of how I did this.

    I'm not sure I follow. For reference, I'm using Poser 11.1.0.34759 at the moment. The roughness setting on the Refraction Node still affects the blur of the duplicate, but that only shows up so long as the IOR is above 1.00.

    The Fac value on the MixClosure seems to only increase or decrease the strength of the duplicate (to the point of being the only thing 'seen'; which was my mistake with the LightPath node). This duplicate moves forward along the Z-axis depending on the IOR value; it overlaps the original object at IOR 1.00.

    Could you previously set the IOR to 1.00 and have the blurred effect?

    @bagginsbill said in Glare Effects in Superfly:

    This was a mistake as the whole point was to keep 90% of the sharp image and 10% of the blurry image. Instead you completely got rid of one of them.

    Right, in hindsight this seems rather obvious!