Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
That's right,
you've said a great truth that all or most of us have overlooked, this is practically a golden rule for all design work, let's just take the example of how the Mandalorian was filmed and that confirms your phrase solidly, Excellent!
i dunno - i guess i just used a small-radius comb and just spammed it across all the style curves.
One thing that is cool about uising a Haircap vs using Genesis as the base for the SBH is you can easily increase the geometry of the hair cap which you cant do to genesis - this allows more style curves to spawn, since they are spawned at the vertices of the mesh on which the SBH is added.
(Im not sure having more style curves is always a good thing, but i feel the genesis mesh doesnt give you enough)
The scalp transition looks very nice - anything particular you're doing there?
one thing I've found for ponytails and buns I have much better luck seperating them into two elements - one for all the hair along the scalp then another the ponytail etc.
Ooft, every time i try to do that i end up with janky bits all over the place xD It's usually the ends, they seem to always want to do their own thing, so when i get everything closer to the roots nice, i have to go fix the janky ends, which usually ends up taking all the wavyness and volume and variation and stuff out of the rest of the hair xD
Y'know, i did not connect those dots. I have often internally complained, thinking, gosh i wish i had more style curves xD Thinking, maybe i should just learn... I think it was zbrush? Or blender? Or both? The one the lets me get more manual with style curves, cannot remember, but yeah, makes a heck of a lot of sense that if i just figured out how to make a damn haircap and got some subd going, i'd have more style curves xD Flippin' genius xD
I don't think i particularly want to learn how to make a haircap xD But this is some pretty interesting information ;3 Thank you ;3
Sometimes the most hidden texture of your Smart Content can give you a surprise,
the reason: viewport preview can be dissapoint...
until you hit render and magic happens. this example is Hyorin Skin + Fredda eyes.
I dont think there was anything particularly interesting i was doing.
Yeah, i was thinking just growing the ponytail out of a primitive placed on the head.
Okay so i find this a little interesting here, that density makes me personally feel uncomfortable xD But it leaves me wildly curious; Lower density + higher style curves (subd) > or < higher density + no subd? (Take the performance factor out of the equation, i will find a way to buy out SpaceX if it will improve my renders)
EDIT:
Looking back at the image of the hair again, i'm going to say the root/hairline situation (Positively speaking) does have a lot to do with that opacity map, it actually does look really flippin' good when i hone in on that hairline/root situation.
i guess you could have lower density but increase the dimensions of the strands, and then split the strands with an opacity map. I havent figured out optimal way of doing it. im just lazy and would rather make my graphics card do the work. I basically increase the density until they stop being bald.
And yes, the opacity map does make a signficant difference, but i assumed this was somewhat common knowledge. i think i lifted that idea from this thread.
I fixed some of the more glaring issues with the hair, although still so many intersections
Okay some more renders I am pretty pleased with
lots of strand hair as per usual, rendered out canvases to tonemap in blender. also experimentd with using luts, and have to say I am a fan. since most films these days use luts, theoretically by using the same I can make my renders look like said films and therefore more "real"
worth noting: in my experimenting if one is using luts just slapping them on isn't necesarily going to do it - you want to make sure what you're porting out of ds/blender looks kind of like what comes out of the sort of camera they use for films which is typically very low contrast so theres no clipping and information lost - to that end I used blender's filmic set to very low contrast. you can always bump the contrast back up at the end
Oh no no no, i meant it scared my how low your density was, i personally insist on a THICK head of hair xD Even my eyebrows are far denser than should be legal xD I was surprised at how good your result is with a lower density xD
And, to be fair, i'm sure using the opacity map for hair probably is very common knowledge xD For me anyway i think i just never took the time to get it right, i have fiddled before but specifically with strand based hair it always feels like i'm not achieving anything with it an opacity map xD But seeing your results, i really need to be investing the time and energy in getting it right :3
As for the updated hair, agree, it has improved a LOT, as per usual with strand based, it still feels a little off here and there, but it certainly feels more full now, less of the gaps, a little bit cleaner, and the back looks much better :3
Ooft, lovely renders! The lighting is so beautiful and soft and yet dramatic, the background feels full and deep yet simple and non-distracting, and the hair is wonderful! The different tones are perfectly done, the part is perfect, literally the only part of that hair that throws me off is the front... Does one call that a fringe? I don't even know xD Bang? Whatever, it feels SLIGHTLY stiff, moreso than one would expect realistically, i mean could just be me xD Maybe i'm just doing the whole 'i KNOW it's just a 3D render so i'm actively seeking evidence of that fact and subconciously fabricating it if i cannot find it' thing xD But that's literally it, other than that, it's literally perfect, i love it :3
As for some additional points;
I'm curious, using canvases to tonemap in blender? I'm curious how THAT works, i assumed the canvases were simply for like... Photoshop editing, what does one do in blender with the canvases?
Mkay so i just did some research on blender for photo editing and i am so terribly confused but also curious, why blender over photoshop or some free alternative? Is there something i simply don't know about with blender that makes it really good for what we're doing here? Or is it just a personal preference?
And oh, i actually recently downloaded this massive pack of LUTs for photoshop for this EXACT purpose but i felt they all felt... Wrong? For lack of a better term, if i may be so bold may i ask where you got yours? /could you recommend somewhere with good LUTs?
I mean, i suppose your last point there about not just slappin' on a LUT is a good point, but i gotta ask, what does that look like? Not literally as in visually but i mean, let's say you found an LUT you like, how would you go about ensuring your scene matches it nicely? It was only like last week i was deep diving into LUTs thinking it was going to change the game a little bit for me but there was a huge disconnect between the expectation and reality, i wonder what hidden wisdom you have acquired that has eluded me? xD
Curiously, the reduced preview version of these renders looked like a step back on your photorealism, but when I look at them full size, they were much more convincing. The weird perceptive stuff with CGI. The hair, though, is fantastic in any view.
I normally use Affinity Photo (sometimes Photoshop) for my postwork and never use the filmic transform on my exr files, but I always use LUTs (and scanned film noise—my thing is trying to match film camera looks). The difference between filmic OCIO transform and standard is slight, although that might just be my toning wipes out the differences. Does Blender have a display transform or tonal range compression node to control how 32-bit information is brought into 8-bit space?
I use film LUTs (e.g., simulations of chemical film emulsions) from here. They are excellent. I have a fuller library of monochrome film simulations I bought (Rocket Rooster, I think), but I almost never use them. Rocket Rooster, though, has a lot of collections of stylized looks that offer a more contemporary "movie" color grade. As mentioned in my above post, I switched to Affinity Photo, even though I have Photoshop because the 32-bit workflow is better—your 32-bit files never leave 32-bit until you export them as jpgs or pngs, whereas Photoshop forces you into switching to 16- or 8-bit once you do the initial grading. My guess is Affinity is much easier to learn if you come from Photoshop than Blender, but be prepared to ask some questions.
As far as using them, I usually end up with a have dozen LUTS in my file and switch between them to decide which one I like best.
The Agfa Visa 200 LUT is gorgeous on this skin, I think, but I'm in a deep monochrome phase, so I'd pick the Agfa APX25 of these two. One thing I've noticed is that the color LUTS that look good on my Irish lass lookin' character don't work as well on this Latina character. So be prepared to switch LUTs for characters with different skin tones. Monochrome always wins with Iray skin, though. Ultimately, though, I think it comes down to the mood you want.
j cade, why don't you seel these hairs? You'd make a killing!!! This is what SBH should be and none of the PA's can deliver but you.
aaráribel caađo, why don't you use the filmic on your EXR's?
love them
@j_cade, I second @Leonides02's comment.
Filmic applies tonal compression to the images, but I can do that in Affinity's "Tone Mapping Persona" with more control.
A = ICC Display transform with exposure set to -12. B = OCIO filmic with exposure -12. C = OCIO filmic with exporsure -16. D = A + 100% tonal compression in Tone Mapping. E = C + 100% tonal compression.
With tone mapping, I can bring in as much or little shadow detail as I want while I tone it, rather than relying on filmic to deliver it, while keeping all the benefits of a 32-bit file. I was going for dark and moody, so the filmic tone mapping just worked against where I wanted this image to end up. (I used an Ilford HP4+ LUT for the black and white conversion/final toning after I finished with the Tone Mapping Persona. I added ISO 400 film grain and tilt-shift blur in Photoshop.)
I believe the filmic standard was developed for Hollywood pipelines as a way of ensuring color remains consistent and minimally lossy through the many different transformations and softwares. That's important when you're compositing many assets from both CGI and camera outputs. But not necessarily critical when you're working with a single asset. However, this is a case where the software you use does impact your workflow. My guess is Blender compositing is designed around filmic, so ignoring it there might cause problems.
So damn fucking cool!
200mm/low gamma
Great render. That hair is [CAN'T USE THAT WORD HERE] cool.
Ah, I see what you mean.
I actually use filmic within Affinity and then adjust with a Brightness / Contrast layer. I find that gives me a lot of control.
Although sometimes I go on an HDR kick and utilize Aurora HDR.
Talk about damn cool. This is great!
That never occurred to me. I migh try it with my next render just to see if I like the workflow. Do you skp the Tone Mapping Persona? Or dip into that as well? I could probably use something like filmic for toning and be happy, but the local toning option is where I'm able to pull out all the detail from the Daz skins. I'd miss that if I skipped it.
I skip the Tine Mapping Persona.
Personally, I find the extra detail on the skin actually widens the gap between CG and photorealism, but that's just my preference.
hair in its natural habitat.
I only let these render for like 5-10 minutes (to about 1000 iterations). I thought they would take longer given that there were several SBH items in the scene, so maybe I do have room to increase SBH density to a higher amount.
I still have to fix the dead-vacuous expression on his face, and maybe change head pose.
You cant see the skin very well, probably for the best, but I was using the IsidoreKeeghan's skin shader method which i think makes the lips very waxy, so probably have to adjust something there...
Edit: Added final versions, which i also only ran for ~1000 iterations, but i made some slight corrections to SBHs, added background, and so on:
I mean, i personally feel like it's well worth it, the difference it makes when i start to pull up that density, it practically gives me chills xD
I'm sure there's a sweet spot, an area you should probably stick around to get some nice volume without going over the top but i mean, i would have thought it would really be like, an internal (like in your own brain) slider between like performance and quality, and you just kind of push it up to an area your comfortable with, i mean, within reason, i shudder to imagine what 1000 density would look like on a head... Though i'll admit i've been tempted by an eyebrow or two, there's always some sparce bits that throw the whole dang thing off xD
I mean, i realise i really don't have any credability here because i am still learning, trying my best to get as close to photorealism as i can with very little assistance or feedback from anyone who knows better xD But for me personally, i found great results when i'm feeling really lazy getting into those 8.1 face controls, surprisingly natural adjustments/morphs you can just be a little gentle with :3 Since you mentioned expressions i mean xD I thought he was fine :3 Just slap a 'brooding' label on him and call it a day ;3
Are we refering to that spectral rendering .99/.99/.99 thing or is this another thing i don't know that i can tear from your more intelligent brain ropes to improve my renders? ;3 Though waxy lips doesn't sound great but i mean i got nothing but time for experimentation ;3
EDIT:
I actually forgot to mention i really love those renders by the way, minus the obvious solid background situation (xD) they look really good, feed me your knowledge please? :3 Also, the hair looks amazing in, as you say, it's natural habitat, most, if not all issues that were present in earlier renders feel practically invisible or straight up fixed :3 Love it :3 Again, no credability over here so i doubt it means much but amazing job on the hair and the renders :3
Isadorekheegan posted something in this thread - a pdf - which im too lazy to find the original post so am just going to upload the pdf again. I dont know if their methodology is sound, but results seem better than the defaults.
I honestly lack any kind of knowledge that would be helpful to anyone. I use marvelous designer for draping clothing - that's about my only pro tip.
These look great, lilweep. Is the scene a photogrammetry scan?
absoluty stunning work. One of the most impressive images I have seen, especially number 2.
absoluty stunning work. One of the most impressive images I have seen, especially number 2.
yeah, it was just some freebie from sketchfab. I have a lot of free stuff on sketchfab organised into personal collections, the naming conventions of which probably dont make sense to anyone but me: https://sketchfab.com/peen.wolf/collections
Some of the photogrammetrty stuff is very good, much better than the crap i used here. I admittedly selected one hastily and maybe it wasnt really appropriate because it has a lot of flaws. My render was supposed to just be a test render, so i wasnt very selective when choosing a background.
Not that i have anything against Daz environments - many of them are very good!
The moment i opened that PDF i knew i was in for a treat :3
Thank you very much, i will deep dive into this little monster today i think ;3
And yeah i mean honestly, weather it's all correct or 'the right way' or anything, none of it really matters xD At the end of the day it either improves your renders or it doesn't, and even that's... Is it subjective? Or objective? Either way, so anything's worth a try :3
I mean, for one, i highly doubt that's true xD And for two, even just remembering knowledge other people have imparted upon you is enough knowledge to share and to help others :3 It may not be your own but very few people come by wisdom entirely in isolation xD
And oh oh oh YES! Once upon a time i tried to use Daz clothes, i tried so hard, i got into dforce clothes, the whole 9 yards, but it doesn't take long before there's a specific thing you want to do with clothes, maybe it's just a piece of clothing you can't find on the store but you really want that clothing in particular, maybe you want to give your character some nice underthings but his particular gens just don't like to behave with all the conforming nonsense (People who render female characters do not realise the underwear struggle, ima be real for a second), i mean, really, there are so many things that trigger you into getting that nasty taste in your mouth when you even think about daz clothing in any form; But yes! Long story short, something triggered me and i started to learn MD, never looked back and 100% agree, i believe MD is MANDATORY, i mean, don't have to make your own clothes in it (Though i prefer to because it's really freakin' fun and theraputic :3), can just use it to drape, but in whatever form it gets used, i truly believe it's mandatory.