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
O.K. Now I'm impressed :-)
Looks great, j cade.
What effect did the backscatter have?
Emma Watson - Case study – Texturing.xyz
Amazing results, but that's Maya (and an extremely talented artsist) for ya!
I've got a couple of programs wrapping up I think some might find useful for daz. One is called the Layer which acts as a virtual vellum on your PC screen. You load a picture into it and then scale it and set the opacity however you need and then hit a hot key and it then allows for your mouse to pass through it to the program below it, such as daz or blender or whatever. You hit the hot keys again to be able to readjust the image as needed or load a new one. The pro version (monetized version) will allow you to cycle through a batch loaded set of images instead of just having a single image loaded at a time. I've found it really useful for getting more realistic tweaks and especially expressions. With 8.1s you can really get some awesome likeness.
Yes, there is always some knowledge that can be reapplied elsewhere.
finally got around to this
some very quick bald renders
my conversion without backscatter
with backscatter
the backscatter set to 100 to demonstrate more clearly what it does
I personally find in reality there is much less edge darkening than without adding some backscatter (the new skin shader tends slightly worse, but I found this true of the original ubershader as well)
sidenote I recently had to reinstal windows and all my programs and in doing so I discovered the nodes I borrowed dont actually come from substance, but vmaterials so if you download that and feel like getting nodey you can grab your own
wow I actually find this... oddly unconvincing.
the bump is great but the skin looks... kind of dead?
So just yesterday I discovered the joys of spectral rendering, and now I'm very, very slowly trawling through this thread to see if there's any clues how to stop the UV seams from lighting up like varicose veins.
But anyway, while I browse, I figure I might as well make an offering for critique.
Have I mentioned I love spectral rendering? It sure keeps the fireflies away.
If you haven't seen it in your trawling of this thread a user named isadorekeegan figured out a method to fix the spectral sss bug - set your transmitted color to .99/.99/.99 and the seam lines will go away - since you're using chromatic sss you still have the sss color to control the color of the volume
also the look of the water on the skin looks very nice - although how dry the clothing looks in comparison looks a bit off
I'm giving it a render right now. The seam lines are definitely gone, but Aiko 8's skin got much more yellowish even when I plugged the old colors into SSS Color. Is there a particular method to getting it closer to the original, or is it just trial and error?
That's actually photorealistic, then.
In the film, they basically slathered fake sweat all over the actors, while keeping their clothes bone-dry.
I give it a shot, but the results were less than promising.
Here's Aiko 8 at Normal/cie1964, with out-of-the-box textures:
Now, here she is with the Transmitted Color at 0.99, 0.99, 0.99:
Finally, here she is with the old Transmitted Color value plugged into SSS Color:
How do I get the skin and shadows to more closely match the original SSS settings? And how do I stop those dead pixels from appearing all over her skin?
EDIT:
When I look at the pictures on my desktop, the dead pixels are black and appear on the bright areas of her face. But when I post them here, they're white and they're on the dark areas of her face?
I'm really not sure what's going on there.
How does this differ from the sss direction in the uber shader ? Below an example with Victoria 8 where I added backscattering via sss direction, first and after. Also it seems that the sss backscattering reduces the transmission backscattering that comes from back lights, that makes sense. So I'd not go with very high sss backscattering to avoid a "plastic" effect.
Ah ok now I understand what you mean for backscattering, that's diffuse reflection .. That is, there's no scattering at all (the light doesn't "crawl" the surface) but the reflection is spreaded at all angles, thus diffused. Yes the velvet node can be used to add some "peachness" to the skin that's missing both in uber and pbrskin. Though G8.1 gets the vellus hair that should do something similar the hard way.
As for sss backscattering, other than "illuminating" the surface in general, it does "boost" the edges on the lighted side, because the scattering density increases with the camera angle. Think as each vertex getting a mini lamp, on the side the vertices get dense so the scattering. But this doesn't work on the dark side that receives no light for scattering. And it's different than velvet anyway.
where can i get those models from?
Me as well, but I think it's a lightng problem because some of the close ups in that thread are stunning
Here's a bump to the thread with a new model update. Sometimes I try too hard and make things worst. I don't know why this one model keeps crashing at anything over SubD3, so this is 3, still trying to figure out the problem, logs show nothing.
My question is, is it best to do makeup on a geoshell or directly on the diffuse? Right now it's on the diffuse, but I was thinking as a shell I could give it some depth and different texture seperate from the displacment of the skin.
I realize the vains are heavy, i'll eventually tone them down but it helps me see the contours easier.
I believe I have that apartment, but it has never looked that good. What are your tricks? :)
Thx for asking.
The appartment layout is my custom appartment, made To fit (almost) KA's Urban Living availeble here at DAZ.
(Hint: KA's Urban Living is a little bit to small to be real life size. Scale up the whole scene to 105%, to make your genesis people happy.)
The room items are by Hameleon over at Rendo.
To help the light set up, I included a ghost light to the windows. To make it work, I copied and pasted the light shaders from Roguey's European Style Appartment.
The wall papers are from Roguey's European Style Appartment as well.
A lot of kit bashing there. Steal from the best and add your own.
Good find the materials on the furniture and floor are great. Lighting is always key and you did a great job here making it look natural.
Who's bathroom is really perfectly organized?
Sounds like the "dead pixels" are actually pixels that are rendered transparent to me. To test it, try putting a crazy color like lime green or neon pink on a layer under it, see if it shows through. I remember seeing some issue on the forum somewhere about pixels rendering transparent, but I cannot recall where or if there was a fix for it......
I recently had the same issues with transparent pixels and spectral rendering (natural) as well.
Took me some time to find the culprit but as it turned out it was the lighting setting wich was set to "scene only". As soon as I switched to "Dome and Scene" the transparent pixels didn´t appear anymore.
Strangely enough it was an indoor scene where you couldn´t see the dome anyways. Even turning the "Environment Map" slider down to 0, which essentially turns off the dome lighting, worked well.
Someone commented that one of my recent renders could probably pass for a photo in black & white, so I'll let you all be the judges.
The face with it's expression certainly could but clothing in iRay still looks too fake.
I actually feel the opposite, I buy the clothes but there's still a little something still off with the face though its close enough that its hard to pinpoint just what it is (the silhouette of the face feels a bit sharp but we're in the super nitpick realm)
one thing I really think sells it - the out of focus areas are indistinguishable from reality and the in focus areas integrate perfectly (I'm assuming because all are in fact cg). So because parts look real the parts that are less perfect integrate with the "real" parts that they look like parts of a whole that looks more real that not.
also aesthetically I just like scenes an in focus mid and out of focus foreground and background. Visual depth is pretty
I have the polar opposite experience. The clothing is fine and passable as real (Luthbel's stuff is probably the best Daz clothing you can get even if i think he/she went overboard on the wrinkles on the WW2 uniform).
Immediately, the face breaks the photorealism for me. Most daz faces look weird and uncanny even when not emoting because the morpsh are unrealistic, let alone when they are emoting. If I block out his eyes, eyebrows, and nose with my hand, then I experience a much more photorealistic image.
In terms of making it more photorealistic, it would be irresponsible of me to suggest solutions because i also cant make photorealistic images. But I think some vellus hair on the face could improve the nose and nasiolabial area and perhaps adding some eye moisture and bigger eyelashes could improve the eyes, i.e., to break up some of the harsh edges on the eyes/nose.
This is a tiny thing, and not the primary driver of the "CGI" impression I got (more specifically: top-notch game graphics) is the film grain is perlin noise, so when I zoomed in to try to see what was giving the impression of game not photo, it really stuck out. If you can get some scanned film grain, that will help. I'd also pull it back a bit. The light is strong enough the film grain isn't likely to be too bad, even with 1940s film stocks, unless this is supposed to be an enlargement. Press cameras are usually medium or large format, which is what I'd expect for WWII, so the negatives are large enough to have a fairly modest grain in goood lighting situations.
All of that said, it's a very good render. The super contrast toning fits in well with wartime photography under natural light and everybody looks like the fit into the setting. The face reads realistic to me, but I might be conciously missig some tell-tale detail that my unconcious brain picks up as "Ah-ha!." Maybe the bump/normal on the jacket is just a touch too high?
I've seen modern digital pictures and video that are sharp as a tack. So sharp that I had the feeling I was looking at a (really, really) realistic and good DAZ render.