IRAY Photorealism?

lilweep

charles said:

aaráribel caađo said:

Those look amazing, charles. Are the 8k textures specifically for Genesis 8 or did you have to maniputlate them?

Thanks! I use 8.1F but use the base_female G8 UV set for body/head as I have my own micrososkin for uber and a layering and tone system developed for those maps that I am not ready to move to the 8.1 map sets. So I did convert some of them from 8.1 to 8. The base skins are done by a guy out of Hungry, I think he maybe partnered with 3D-SK (Who I have been using for micro detailing for a while and have a huge set of reference pics from) but not sure, I need to drop him a PM.  I also find I like the effect from Scatter&Transmit over PBRSkin, it just seems to pop more. I only did closeups because I've been using a male specular map that is creating seams and trying to clean it up now. Not all his stuff is 8k, I think he's just now moving into it with the newer skins and one needs remember to bump up the render compression max or it's lost.

To be honest I don't have the kind of eye you and Cade have with your posts and so am usually passive on those, but have very much been inspired.

omg just answer the question

Richard Haseltine

charles said:

So here is a question for those working with the shader mixer. Is it possible to have a second Bump map?

Fore example with the hand and other parts I would like to have my main base map (I don't use normal) and then have another to do finer detail like exagerating the knuckle seams.

In RSL (3delight) it is certainly possible to combine two bumps into a new bump brick, but it's not something I have looked at in MDL (Iray).

j cade

Richard Haseltine said:

charles said:

So here is a question for those working with the shader mixer. Is it possible to have a second Bump map?

Fore example with the hand and other parts I would like to have my main base map (I don't use normal) and then have another to do finer detail like exagerating the knuckle seams.

In RSL (3delight) it is certainly possible to combine two bumps into a new bump brick, but it's not something I have looked at in MDL (Iray).

Its definitely possible, you could either blend the textures, or add a second bump (there is an add bump node) but I wouldn't really want to do it to the Iray uber shader specifically, as the uber shader kind of breaks when you pull it into mixer (the new pbrskin shader on the other hand doesn't get messed up when you import it to shader mixer)

Gordig

charles said:

So here is a question for those working with the shader mixer. Is it possible to have a second Bump map?

Fore example with the hand and other parts I would like to have my main base map (I don't use normal) and then have another to do finer detail like exagerating the knuckle seams.

You might want to consider playing with the PBRSkin shader, since that's exactly what the Detail parameter is for.

Masterstroke

Has anybody an idea, how to prevent PBR skins from looking too dark and too dry?

Gordig

Masterstroke said:

Has anybody an idea, how to prevent PBR skins from looking too dark and too dry?

Paging @The Blurst of Times.

Tugpsx

Playing around with iRay and UltraScenery then the idea came to me of a bold ant traveler.

uberRogh

I've enjoyed reading through this thread and seeing the options people are using for photorealism. For me 8.1 has been a huge jump but it is not always consistant across pbr skins and lighting.

This is my latest render, that started as a trial of using puppeteer to mix expressions, after seeing one of Jay's videos on YouTube, and ended with me continueing to build the render out.

I did some white balance and color correction in Photoshop.

My biggest issues on this one were the eyes and hair, whilst this version didn't match my original intention I was happy with the result. As others have mentioned hair is still a big issue but I've found by using hair shader packs can sometimes bring more realism.

notiusweb

Just a thought - What would be more interesting for you to work with:

(1) A Daz figure that accomplishes ultimate photo-realism in all lighting scenarios at a heavy processing cost; or

(2) A Daz figure that modestly reaches photo-realism in certain lighting scenarios at a low procesing cost.

charles

notiusweb said:

Just a thought - What would be more interesting for you to work with:

(1) A Daz figure that accomplishes ultimate photo-realism in all lighting scenarios at a heavy processing cost; or

(2) A Daz figure that modestly reaches photo-realism in certain lighting scenarios at a low procesing cost.

1, always 1. I got an uber rig for what playing minesweeper? 

maltsevan_af3c9f51e1

charles

maltsevan_af3c9f51e1 said:

 

Very good! Maybe play with the dual specular lobe to make it look like he's not sweating. 

maltsevan_af3c9f51e1

charles said:

maltsevan_af3c9f51e1 said:

 

Very good! Maybe play with the dual specular lobe to make it look like he's not sweating. 

 

it happened spontaneously, I was just tired of waxing with him. Yes, maybe the shine needs to be removed a little)

gamesfromlove

j cade said:

Okay I've added bump to it, so if anyone wants to experiment with my cornea/eye moisture shader have at it.

 

It is released as is and unsupported, If you have any extra questions, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to explain but I am not going to do a full walkthrough and explain every single thing about it.

 

the main shader setting you might want to tweak is refraction roughness - the rougher it is the more smoothly it will transfer light, but the more it will blur the underlying texture. I have set the min and max to the range where it works without too many issues - if you get weird shadows up the roughness a bit from the default until they go away.

Reflection weight controls the strength of the reflections set it to 0 and you just have refraction with no shine.

 

known limitations

• much slower to render
• not see through in viewport. you will just see grey
• does not like point and spot lights with the geometry set to point (don't use them any way because they're physically innaccurate)
• in general, the smaller the light source the more the shader will struggle (this is where you might need to turn up refraction roughness) HDRIS on the otther hand generally work well
• will darken the underlying surface a bit no matter whart you do

the easiest way to compensate for the darkening of the underlying surface is to take your sclera/iris texture and use the layered image editor and add it to itself. 2 layers both with the same eye texture with the upper one seet to add usually with its strength set to around 50%. The strength will depend on how big your light sources are. Smaller light sources you will need to brighten things more. (and yes this means if you change your lighting you may need to change the material to compensate)

 

also included is a comparison render in some actual nice lighting - here the proper refracted version is actually lighter than the default

 

Are you able to share full details of this?

remcovanembden

I tried to dabble again in some realism.

I first created the morph in zbrush and made my own brushes for the skin pores. I painted the texture map in zbrush too. No photos were used. Still lots to tweak.

 

 

remcovanembden

here is another one in different light.

 

 

Masterstroke

The second one looks better. Very good job on the skin structure. It looks like it is easier to have realistic skin with IRAY, when using dark skin.

remcovanembden

I think that is because the darker skin, just like in real life absorbs the light a bit differently. Also the right materials play a part. Iray tenders faster with the right bpr materials. Underlying skin surface is important too. I Paint the skin now so the materials have to be correct and in the right scale. The painted skin is very flat so IT is not possible to hide stuff like with photo textures.

remcovanembden

I meant renders, not tenders lol

charles

It's kind of hard to tell with the head camera and flat focal length. Maybe post some profile and angles so we can see a bit more of the depth?

When you are detailing things like pores in z, I take it those aren't exporting back to Daz in great detail due to the HD limitation?

 

 

remcovanembden

I don't use HD but I use normal maps and if needed displacements. I don't like HD at all. Here are some quick screenshots from side and 3/4th view. 

The detailing are done by hand, no surface scans, because i can do that. I made my own pore, pimple and wrinkle brushes.  I also make use of sculpting second and tertiary forms. Everything is made in HD mode in zbrush to get the maxium result. The albedo map is not done yet but is coming along nicely I think for now.I also included the flat albedo map.

charles said:

It's kind of hard to tell with the head camera and flat focal length. Maybe post some profile and angles so we can see a bit more of the depth?

When you are detailing things like pores in z, I take it those aren't exporting back to Daz in great detail due to the HD limitation?

 

 

charles

Are you sure you should be using normals and not bump maps? I find normals screw with the specular if not used modestly. I can definantly see the pores you added via normals, and it's creating a lot of shine that I personally believe should be controlled by dual lobe specular and gloss. But that's what you would get with lots of normal micro patterns as your gradient fall off for depth and height scatters the bounce. 

axicecal

notiusweb said:

Just a thought - What would be more interesting for you to work with:

(1) A Daz figure that accomplishes ultimate photo-realism in all lighting scenarios at a heavy processing cost; or

(2) A Daz figure that modestly reaches photo-realism in certain lighting scenarios at a low procesing cost.

 If people want to acheive half measures then direct them to Eevee/Blender

But then again 95% of people rendering in Daz clearly have no idea how to use Daz above 10% of its potential. I guess you can blame half of that due to lack of proper documentation but also the digusting greed based culture that is connected to this software.

takezo_3001

axicecal said:

notiusweb said:

Just a thought - What would be more interesting for you to work with:

(1) A Daz figure that accomplishes ultimate photo-realism in all lighting scenarios at a heavy processing cost; or

(2) A Daz figure that modestly reaches photo-realism in certain lighting scenarios at a low procesing cost.

 If people want to acheive half measures then direct them to Eevee/Blender

But then again 95% of people rendering in Daz clearly have no idea how to use Daz above 10% of its potential. I guess you can blame half of that due to lack of proper documentation but also the digusting greed based culture that is connected to this software.

Ouch, shots fired!

I actually blame the over-abundance/reliance of/on pre-made assets, (Which is a good thing as that is what's financing Daz!) don't get me wrong, it is not a question of artistic talent in the least, but more of convenience as most people here are adults with less time on their hands... but there are plenty of people here in this thread that have dug quite deep into DS in spite of the ignorant lack of proper documentation, not to mention scores of others that don't frequent the forums or Daz itself!

 

remcovanembden

charles said:

Are you sure you should be using normals and not bump maps? I find normals screw with the specular if not used modestly. I can definantly see the pores you added via normals, and it's creating a lot of shine that I personally believe should be controlled by dual lobe specular and gloss. But that's what you would get with lots of normal micro patterns as your gradient fall off for depth and height scatters the bounce. 

I like normals better than bump maps and no it shouldnt matter bump or normal, youll still het the specular. IT also depends on the hdr i use. In a couple posts above, there is hardly any shine. This picture i have also posters once. I couldnt get the same skinfolds when using bump maps. IT used exactly the same shader as the one on the dark Girl.

remcovanembden

charles said:

Are you sure you should be using normals and not bump maps? I find normals screw with the specular if not used modestly. I can definantly see the pores you added via normals, and it's creating a lot of shine that I personally believe should be controlled by dual lobe specular and gloss. But that's what you would get with lots of normal micro patterns as your gradient fall off for depth and height scatters the bounce. 

I like normals better than bump maps and no it shouldnt matter bump or normal, youll still het the specular. IT also depends on the hdr i use. In a couple posts above, there is hardly any shine. This picture i have also posters once. I couldnt get the same skinfolds when using bump maps. IT used exactly the same shader as the one on the dark Girl.

charles

remcovanembden said:

charles said:

Are you sure you should be using normals and not bump maps? I find normals screw with the specular if not used modestly. I can definantly see the pores you added via normals, and it's creating a lot of shine that I personally believe should be controlled by dual lobe specular and gloss. But that's what you would get with lots of normal micro patterns as your gradient fall off for depth and height scatters the bounce. 

I like normals better than bump maps and no it shouldnt matter bump or normal, youll still het the specular. IT also depends on the hdr i use. In a couple posts above, there is hardly any shine. This picture i have also posters once. I couldnt get the same skinfolds when using bump maps. IT used exactly the same shader as the one on the dark Girl.

 I like this older lady picture a lot, however it still suffers the same normal weirdness as the dark skinned girl. To me I see a clammy skin when overusing normals, that's an artifact of Daz mostly. If that's what you want, cool. But bumps and normals are not the same thing. With the less direct hdr sure you don't suffer the shine, but more direct lighting will cause it because that's what normals do.

 

charles

A perfect example is take a look at the light on the bridge of the nose from both of the head on images of the dark skinned girl above.

charles

takezo_3001 said:

axicecal said:

notiusweb said:

Just a thought - What would be more interesting for you to work with:

(1) A Daz figure that accomplishes ultimate photo-realism in all lighting scenarios at a heavy processing cost; or

(2) A Daz figure that modestly reaches photo-realism in certain lighting scenarios at a low procesing cost.

 If people want to acheive half measures then direct them to Eevee/Blender

But then again 95% of people rendering in Daz clearly have no idea how to use Daz above 10% of its potential. I guess you can blame half of that due to lack of proper documentation but also the digusting greed based culture that is connected to this software.

Ouch, shots fired!

I actually blame the over-abundance/reliance of/on pre-made assets, (Which is a good thing as that is what's financing Daz!) don't get me wrong, it is not a question of artistic talent in the least, but more of convenience as most people here are adults with less time on their hands... but there are plenty of people here in this thread that have dug quite deep into DS in spite of the ignorant lack of proper documentation, not to mention scores of others that don't frequent the forums or Daz itself!

 

I do like daz because it's a hell of a lot easier to setup scenes then anything else. It can however be overwhelming, and I still come across features in the software I didn't know about. I do wish we had a rendering system more like cycles for sure and maybe one day we'll get that. But there is also a ton one can do in post work. But there is pretty much everything here under one hood with Daz to do just about anything one wants. The camera systems, to hdr maps to IES lighting, to build your own shader. It's a bad ass piece of software for being free. My only huge gripe is the artificial restriction to HD editing. Also how vertex normals are ignored when importing objs.

takezo_3001

charles said:

I do like daz because it's a hell of a lot easier to setup scenes then anything else. It can however be overwhelming, and I still come across features in the software I didn't know about. I do wish we had a rendering system more like cycles for sure and maybe one day we'll get that. But there is also a ton one can do in post work. But there is pretty much everything here under one hood with Daz to do just about anything one wants. The camera systems, to hdr maps to IES lighting, to build your own shader. It's a bad ass piece of software for being free. My only huge gripe is the artificial restriction to HD editing. Also how vertex normals are ignored when importing objs.

Me too, it's the very reason why I have pretty much abandoned poser!

It's as if I finally took off the boxing gloves needed in order to use that software, its archaic interface runs counter to learning anything new along with true customize-ability as with DS, you don't even have proper mouse navigation, as you're still stuck moving around the scene with virtual levers with the insanely pointless 100k limits with character morphs!

Although I will credit it with an excellent character development suite, animation/dynamic cloth support, and most importantly a comprehensive manual detailing everything about the program; the major issues I have are with the interface, limited customization, mediocre rendering engine, (Great for stylized renders though) and it doesn't support the genesis generations!