Loading...
> >

texture help (advice needed)

assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
edited December 1969 in The Commons

I am using some photoshop brushes, the eyebrow shapes are nice, they're not rendering out as nice as I would like them to

http://s67.photobucket.com/user/Vata_Raven/media/browtest11_zpse7be252e.jpg.html

http://s67.photobucket.com/user/Vata_Raven/media/browtest111_zps8795c174.jpg.html

If you look at the pictures, they don't look all that great

If there a way...to say, up the quality of the brows?

Comments

  • Lissa_xyzLissa_xyz Posts: 6,116
    edited December 1969

    Is this for a texture being used in DS, or post work?

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I'm using the product Genesis Eyebrows, and I'm adding onto the product by making more eyebrow shapes for it.

    So, I work on it in gimp/photoshop and it's applied

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited August 2013

    They are not that bad, infact i like how you shaped em.

    What is missing is a bump map and a displacement map, to add some depth to the eyebrows.

    In the eyebrows surface panel, as a first test, load an inverted (negative) black and white copy of your painted texture as bump map and try tweaking the bump strength. That should already make a difference.

    Then do the same for the displacement map. You'll probably need to lower the contrast in an external editor in this case.

    Remember that 50% grey means no change (for both bump and displacement), darker means a depression or inset and lighter means an extrusion or bump. Strong changes in adiacent pixels (high contrast zones) create spikes and edgy surfaces, while gradients and low contrast make for subtle smooth ramps.

    Post edited by kesh on
  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I think it may be the method of who I'm doing those brow tests

    Because I've done other where I've painted them right on the texture and they tender out better, the using the genesis eyebrow product base

    Or maybe it could be that brushes are flat on texture (you know, don't look real) or something

    because, here is it painted on

    http://s67.photobucket.com/user/Vata_Raven/media/brows3_zps980dfed8.jpg.html

    the brows render out better...still a bit lower res (they odn't render as well)

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited August 2013

    Here is a quick example: the green square is just a plane primitive with the bump and displacement maps equal to the grey one in the bottom right corner. And the 3d effect is quite evident. No geometry has been changed in the plane, just the maps cause the 'illusion'

    bumpdisp.jpg
    1024 x 829 - 117K
    Post edited by kesh on
  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    As I figure out how to make a bump map...

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited August 2013

    well, in gimp or photoshop, load your brows texture, change it to black and white, make it negative (so the brows hair look white on a grey background) then adjust the luminosity and contrast so that the skin (background) is as close as possible to a 50% grey, while the brows are light and tending to white.

    Save this image as - for instance - browsbump.tif

    then in your scene apply this as the bump and displacement maps for the brows surface. Ta-da!

    Remember to keep your maps large enough to maintain a good resolution. for brows in a closeup portrait i'd make em no smaller than 2048 pixels wide, otherwise your final render would show artifacts and low res pixels.

    In my example above the bumpmap is 512x512 applied onto the primitive surface which is 10metersx10meters... and even at the low res i rendered you can see the pixelation on the blurred Ts.

    PS: to better appreciate/evaluate the results, don't render with the default light, but use a distant light or spotlight coming from somewhere above the subject, with shadows set to raytraced. Frontal light flattens any image because the shadows are not visible...

    Post edited by kesh on
  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I"m not sure what the res is...my base face texture is like...4000 x 4000...is that means anything

    if you mean the brushes that I"m using...I hardly doubt they are

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Oops... sorry ^^

    res = resolution and it's related to the rendered scene image dimensions versus the texture maps dimensions used (and the proportions of the object they are applied to... for a single leaf on a tree you don't need a high res map if you are rendering a forest ^^)

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Is it possible that the photoshop brushes are just too low res from the start?

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    That i don't know... it depends on how you are using them.

    If they are proper brushes for photoshop they should also give you the option to change their size for painting in a bigger or smaller canvas... but for that you'd better have a look at photoshop tutorials.

  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    If they need ENLARGED more than 50% to fit the 4000x4000 base texture file the answer is yes. You lose to much detail above 50%.

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Jaderail said:
    If they need ENLARGED more than 50% to fit the 4000x4000 base texture file the answer is yes. You lose to much detail above 50%.

    ...unless they are vector brushes, in which case the rescaling is virtually lossless... ;)

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I can change the sizes...and I have no idea what the base size for there brushes are even

    http://s67.photobucket.com/user/Vata_Raven/media/Eyebrows9_zpsc2021f1c.jpg.html

    that how I use them, just pain them right on the base face texture Im using

    http://photoshopweb.deviantart.com/art/28-Eyebrow-Photoshop-Brushes-140000720
    only 1 brow in this set looked decent

    http://norellaangelique.deviantart.com/art/STOCK-Painted-Eyebrows-Brush-144165798
    http://marielena.deviantart.com/art/EyeBrow-Brushes-298496373

    those are the ones I'm using...or trying to use

  • keshkesh Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Unfortunately none of those are vectorial brushes, but just bitmap ones, so if you need to resize them significantly you will loose definition, as Jaderail rightly pointed out.

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I've deiced it's the render engine (daz's defult)

    Because I rendered some skin maps (V5 one) and the eyebrows look "fake" on them...and those are the originals...untouched

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    http://s67.photobucket.com/user/Vata_Raven/media/browsss_zpsa8829cc2.jpg.html

    that's the V5 rendered out on my end....yeah, id those look dull...it has to be the render engine, right?

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited December 1969

    It would be much easier if you attached the render to the post, rather than post non functioning links to off site images,

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    ....the links WORK, cop paste the whole thing, instead of lazy 1-clicking it

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited December 1969

    Yes I know, but if you attached the image to the post, as most peoploe do it would be visible in the forum, is why we have the attachment thing

  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Or you could do this LINK

    Just quote this to see the code.

  • assmonkeyassmonkey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Well, now I know how to do a new link

    I figured out the issue...it was a render res issue...they look amazing when I hit the 2049+ res area...so...that was my dumb fault

    Thanks for all the help

Sign In or Register to comment.