Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Talking about realistic backgrounds...
I have tried different HDRI from HDRI Haven, they seems great, but when it comes to blend them with the photorealistic character... Something still seems fake. It always have the "collage" look that we don't want. I've looked at @lilweep links, I didn't know that "models"... Got to try them. I think I need something 3D with a "real photo" attached to it, as texture, and lighting, the give depth to the photo... I'm asking you. I would like to recreate something "simple" like the photo below. Something with the realism of @jeff_someone but with 2020 look.
I'm thinking about a simple photo as background, model in front and lights according to photo original lights. Can this work?
To me, the aforementioned photo kind of looks like somebody put a picture of a person in front of an HDRI background. Like, I think if you had convinced people that the image was computer generated then I think they would say the female model is amazing but the background is killing the realism. The photo is probably a good candidate for this thread.
In general, HDRI images are not intended to serve as visible pieces of the scene -- instead, they are mainly to provide realistic omnidirectional lighting that simulates the surrounding lighting of the scene itself. So, trying to use one as a background in lieu of a 3D scene is a tough proposition to begin with. You can do it... but in general, it doesn't work too well. That 'collage' look probably comes from one or more issues to include: 1) usually it hard to match the depth of focus and general image focus/sharpness to that of the 3d rendered portion...giving it that 'fake' tilt-shift look, 2) in Daz at least, I find the HDRI images (even top quality ones such as HDRIHaven) tend to render less saturated than the 3D rendered portion...so it looks off, 3) Perspective is almost impossible to match to your 3D rendered portion, and 4) the biggee of course, is trying to cast a shadow on anything from the scene.
Wow - this is new for me. Could you point me to some explanation of how I might use those assets in DAZ Studio? Are they 3d Objects or something else entirely? Looks extremely interesting though.
So I clicked on a model, and it nearly killed my laptop...spinning wheel of death etc.
they are just OBJ files made from photoscanning. You can just download the files from Sketchfab, unzip, and then import into Daz as an OBJ. Then of course, apply the texture maps to the surfaces.
Have you checked out the PA polygonal miniatures on Daz Store? They use the same technique of photogrammetry.
There are youtube videos on how to make your own photogrammetry assets with a basic digital camera/phone camera if you feel so inclined.
I did a search after I posted (above) and found a couple of YouTube videos with explanations - one where the guy did a photo scan of a tree stump with his phone camera and then finished the job in MeshLab & Blender. Fascinating. I didn't realise that kind of software was so accessible.
A re-topologizing could (should) be done before using the assets. In this process, the geometry is simplified and optimized. The details that are lost in retopology are baked into textures and brought back. In this way, this process makes the assets much more practical to use than the raw asset.
- Greg
A number of HDRI Haven images come with backplates, which are easier to use than the HDRI's themselves as backplates. I've found it all-but-impossible to use the HDRIs themselves as an image element because DS doesn't, so far as I can tell, allow you to scale the placement or rotate exept on the Y-axis. For backplate matching, you'll get best results if you take the lens information provided and match that, or the perspectie on the figures will be off. The real tricky part of matching for me, since I work with exr files, is that the alphas Iray outputs as exr files aren't [brain freeze: where the lines are interperlated to create smooth lines instead of jagged, pixel steps]. That creates ovious edges in places like hair. You almost have to make your own greenscreen or live with 8-bit PNGs, which kills some of the capacity to match light levels.
You can make shadow catchers. I've done it with simple shapes used to match scenery items. Obviously, it's a lot easier if you don't put anything into the scene that casts shadows on any surface but the ground or a simple wall. I don't think I had an HDRI for this particular background, so I found one with a similar sky and faked it (nor is this render particularly photoreal). To get shadows on the rails, I made them out of primatives and assigned the shadow catcher shader/mode to them. It's a small effect, but easy enough to do.
What's really hard is reflective surfaces. This water is too rough to relfect the characters, but if it was placid, this shot would have been extremely hard. Now I want to watch FX demo reals to see if any of them show CGI bits intereacting with complicated real-life reflecting surfaces.
Hey, did you ever notice that figures will look real vs fake, independent of, and no matter how good or how bad the lighting is? What is it then, the proportions or something?
Like, "Take on Me" by Aha has some pretty photo-real looking sketch work, I believe those are 'real' characters. Whereas I look at some of the images in the Daz store and my brain knows it looks fake right off the bat. But what throws me with proportions is then if see a photo of Elmo or Cookie Monster, I see it as photo real, as in the object is real, and not a render. And it was not even a human, but a plush puppet.
Also, if you take a real photo of a person, and then in Photoshop simplify the color channels, or make itblack and white, or erase highlights or shadows, it still looks photo-real. Or if you make the resolution tiny it still looks photo real. But then I could modify and embelish a render of a charcater a thousand different ways and people know it is not real. Or this - a wax museum character of an actor, I know it is not the real peraon, it looks fake. But yet my brain knows it exists in 3D and is not a render. What the heck!??!! LOL
Looks like we all don't understand precisely how to solve the "problem" with photorealism. jeff_someone is the one who had better results and I've tried following his advices... To me, with the right model, a plain background, the right settings and the one single point light directly on the model we can achieve photorealism. Seems that the straight light, like a flash, result very similar to a real photo. But not everybody want to simulate a "flash" and we are again with the "problem".
I'm trying to use models photogrammetry models, but I have problems importing .obj in Daz. Model is ok, the texture file is loaded but is not displayed, resulting in a black 3D model. Any advice?
Another question is, clothing. We need realistic models AND realistic clothes... Maybe @jeff_someone can help. I'm learning how to use Marvelous Designer, but I'm not sure about the photorealistic results. Anybody have experience with this software? Any advices for shoes too? Can we make it for Daz
Thank you guys, I'm finding this forum really great!
clap, clap oh yes exactly.
There is a lot I don't understand either. Even the worst quality photos look like photo real, while the best renders are not even close to it.
Thinking about it another way - some artists spend a lot of time trying to get a render to look like a photograph that's had a lot of time spent on it. A lot of time getting the lighting right, the composition, the reflections, the pose, the makeup, the way the clothing drapes, and so on. What is so refreshing about the images by @jeff_someone in this thread is that they are intended to look like the complete opposite: a snapshot that has been taken with minimal thought given to artistic impact; just a spontaneous quickie from an instant camera. Yet they look more "real" than many of the artistic efforts I've seen in the Gallery or on DevArt.
But yes, there's always a give-away that, even subconsciously, shouts "fake". Such as the one I mentioned earlier in the thread - the way the clothes just sit on top of a figure rather than looking like they are being worn by the figure. 3D collision algorithms have a long way to go and, unfortunately, DAZ Studio isn't even close to being capable of what is possible at the moment.
Thank you Rashad.
Procedural bump for bodies would be interesting to try, I know Maya has it. I'm using Auto Face Enhancer for DAZ, which you can dial a few bumps and it looks great.
Yes, resolution really depends how close you want to get to your character When you zoom really far out it does not really matter. So DAZ models are only good for medium to far distances.
Some people prefer neutral soft tones of ACES (like me) and some prefer dramatic, high contrast (like most people in the gallery looks like).
SSS in Iray tends to make bumps look "hard" and it's hard to avoid it. You can turn up the SSS to soften them, but the SSS quickly gets overblown (red nose etc), and it's really hard to find the proper balance. This is why I prefer blender's SSS. It doesn't have that problem.
photogrammatry is key to making something look realistic. Here are some of polygonal miniatures models, with some very simple shaders. As you can see, good textures help A LOT.
Is it possible to scan a room? Could I make a model of my lounge? I'd be blown away to have a DAZ figure walking through my house! :)
As for textures, I am clueless when it comes to adding textures or how UV maps are created. One of the things I keep promising myself to figure out in Blender but I have yet to find the time.
Nor perfect, but I do like how this one came out.
You should be able to do that. This is free but you need nVidia CPU with CUDA 2.0 units available: https://alicevision.org/#meshroom
Hi.
I really believe that many objects can look realistic quite easy -thats why we have so many tv ads with cars and such that don't exist but many people don't realize it; for example -,
But the definitve test is making realistic enough people.
In that sense I think the key is the textures and not the morphs.
For example you can download this free 3d model and render it in the basic daz rendering setup and you will see how textures are really the key of it looking real, or at least more realistic than the majority of models you can purchase here at daz
https://www.3dscanstore.com/blog/Free-3D-Head-Model
I myself started to play a bit with the concepts of color zones for human body and trying to apply to some of my OC. But of course my skills are still too poor to get good enough results or conclusions.
In that sense @jeff_someone already posted an example about how he also colours his textures with multiple colors.
so what we really need is vendors who start to go a step beyond and make textures in a diffrent, more ugly way. Because ugly in the end looks better when we try to get more realistic results IMO.
That background is an HDRI from HDRIHaven.
I see people using it all the time.
Even the best stuff still looks fake to me, but i respect how close they can come. Im not sure how dependent realism is on detail, but it seems like the more detailed something is, the more convincing it will be. But of course, realism depends on so many other things too. I think obscuring the expectation of detail through imitating lens abberations maybe is one way to improve the realism after you did the best you could elsewhere.
Attached are just some highly detailed and close-to-real portraits from artstation. I believe they are mostly using ornitrix-made hairs. Not sure if there is any hard limit on getting G8 and other assets to this level. It seems to be related to the artist's skill more than anything.
May I add my two cents to this? A lot of factors tie into what makes a model realistic. Anatomically speaking, a realistic model will have:
-Good primary forms (these forms being skeletal structure, muscle, and fat deposits underneath that give your models specific features and proportions), secondary forms (the wrinkles, folds, and creases of the skin or any blemishes), and tertiary forms (micro details like pores and small lip wrinkles that break the specularity of the skin). [ Resource: Anatomy for Sculptors]
-Asymmetry, because humans aren't perfectly symmetrical.
-Transitional meshes, which give a smooth transition between meshes. You'll usually see them on the eyeball, gums, and nails. [ Quick example: How to Create Realistic Hair, Peach Fuzz, and Eyes tutorial]
Once you have a solid anatomical foundation (and decent textures), you'll have a much easier time getting it to look right regardless of lighting situation.
The problem with like the last 5 comments trying to resolve the puzzle is this - they are stressing details and more details.
But they don't explain how a lo-fi mini-resolution half-blurry photo of a real life person looks real. And then with the renders, the duck and owl one looks real like a stylized photo, but has no human figure in it. The Kurt Cobain one in that set comes closest, but it still feels like a render. Same for the Eye occlusion one...Don't get me wrong, they are awesome renders, but they are not hitting the sweet spot, you know?
But that he head bust though, that more 'feels' like a real physical object. Now, that head bust has no hair, and also no eyes....Are these the culprits, as in rendered hair and eyes have a distinct look vs an actual prosthetic fake hair or eye in real life does. It also has varying levels of DOF. Is that - varying DOF - something that isn't otherwise rendered properly, unless explicity made to. Maybe that is photographed and not rendered, varying DOF?
transitional meshes are missing from every daz picture and it is essential for realism. You can try to use the "eye moisture" surface of the Genesis 8 Female Eyelashes, but it looks too thick by default and needs to be thinned out.
They are done really well in this video, and it's 6 years old but looks much better than DAZ stuff in my opinion.
Speaking of which, Chris Jones (the author of the video) made a human rig that you can buy for Blender, and it works better than Genesis 8 in my opinion. Much easier to manipulate characters. Also the eye animations are just way better.
Did you buy his product, because when I look on Gumroad it clearly states that the facial rig is NOT included, which stinks.
I guess it's not, darn. Wonder why he included the "Ed" video in the product page, then.
edit: he does explain how he makes it in his blog, and people have replicated the eye rotation part https://blenderartists.org/t/human-progress/1143224/74
Also, he explains how he makes his transitional mesh in blender https://blenderartists.org/t/human-progress/1143224/119
I have read all the pages(lol). I saw someone mention that skin is most important. Personally i think the shape is what makes a person or an object look realistic. Then of course the underlying surfaces of the skin. Last diffuse map. Of course lights play a big roll too. I think finding the right balance between these things is the key.
I also saw someone mentioning second and third forms. And i am with that person. I often miss this in characters in the marketplaces. I tried to make a celeb in 3D and it has been a journey. I am still not done. I am now creating normal maps for the body and then i will make SSS maps and hopefully thickness maps too. This is what i have so far:
^ Honestly thought that was a scanned face. The model and textures are really good.
Her mouth shape and face shape look a lot like Charlize Theron - is that who it is supposed to be modelled on?
Yes, you are correct. If i had a scanned face of hers it would be a lot easier lol. The problem is, especially with a famous person, we don't know how they look without the glamour and fluff.
What i often do, is look at skeletons and model the face around that. And then begin to shape the face after a picture or a scan. I dont have access to HD so i try to sculpt as much as possible in the face and port that over to the normal maps.
I made transitional mesh for g8f.. does anyone know how to use the transfer utility to make it an attachment that follows morphs? I attached the obj here.