Loading...
> >

IRAY Photorealism?

1…457910…67

Comments

  • notiuswebnotiusweb Posts: 110
    FP said:
    jeff_someone said:
    elbiggus said:

    I've not really found much in the way of hair that can stand close scrutiny, but the biggest obstacle seems to be skin; most of the default textures are far too smooth and flawless which lends a definite artificial tone to renders. Been fiddling with making some of my own with some success, and although it's still a work in progress I'm still fairly happy with the indoor scene -- it could do with a bit of camera adjustment and some slightly stronger light, but the overall effect is close enough. Outdoors, though, there's a definite hint of waxiness to the skin that I just can't seem to overcome...

    If it helps, one thing you can try, aside from adding imperfections, is to add color variation to the skin.  In reality, human skin is 'skin color', but also red, blue, green, some yellows, etc and it varies in certain parts of the body.  Try randomly adding some color (knees, chest, nose, etc) and see if it helps.   Below is my latest render... the skin shader and underlying textures use this technique.   ___Jeff.

     

     

    Ever thoought about selling skin shaders on Daz?

    This is very ineteresting, it makes me think of how I was joking to Jeff about if his character was standing next to a base model.  Imagine a base model, like G8F standing next to her in a T-pose or something.  LOL...If the base model looks as real, one would say his lighting environment and use of visual effect is his talent that he can sell.  If the base model looks like a manequin compared to his character, than it's his skin shader he should sell!... Anyway, to see that interjection with realism would be really creepy, but awesome at the same time! 

  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    Siciliano1969 said:

    Do you mean pasting a rendered female figure onto a real backround? .. The female textures are custom modified in Photoshop .. From what I understand he is just using a simple spot light set ..

    Yes I do feel there is some composition especially when I catch odd shadows or strange contours that shouldn't be there. For example in the last rendering look at the left arm that's casting a soft shadow to the background as if it was a pre-rendered backplate. But no I don't mean using real photos, apart hdri. I mean that the textures are probably fit to work in that specific light set, and I feel the light set itself is designed to get a shadeless effect to better work on textures. So that's why I talk about "cheating".

    But all of this is just my impression because of some oddities I see in the renderings. It may well be other things entirely.

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    edited July 2019
    Padone said:
    Siciliano1969 said:

    Do you mean pasting a rendered female figure onto a real backround? .. The female textures are custom modified in Photoshop .. From what I understand he is just using a simple spot light set ..

    Yes I do feel there is some composition especially when I catch odd shadows or strange contours that shouldn't be there. For example in the last rendering look at the left arm that's casting a soft shadow to the background as if it was a pre-rendered backplate. But no I don't mean using real photos, apart hdri. I mean that the textures are probably fit to work in that specific light set, and I feel the light set itself is designed to get a shadeless effect to better work on textures. So that's why I talk about "cheating".

    But all of this is just my impression because of some oddities I see in the renderings. It may well be other things entirely.

    Padone said:
    Siciliano1969 said:

    Do you mean pasting a rendered female figure onto a real backround? .. The female textures are custom modified in Photoshop .. From what I understand he is just using a simple spot light set ..

    Yes I do feel there is some composition especially when I catch odd shadows or strange contours that shouldn't be there. For example in the last rendering look at the left arm that's casting a soft shadow to the background as if it was a pre-rendered backplate. But no I don't mean using real photos, apart hdri. I mean that the textures are probably fit to work in that specific light set, and I feel the light set itself is designed to get a shadeless effect to better work on textures. So that's why I talk about "cheating".

    But all of this is just my impression because of some oddities I see in the renderings. It may well be other things entirely.

    There is no compositing of any sort in my renders.  They are straight out of Daz; all elements of the scenes are 100% CGI (except for some rare outdoor HDIR scenes which I hardly ever do).  Try as I might I do not understand Padone's comment(s) regarding the 'odd shadows'... no one else has ever mentioned this, nor do I see what he means.  The shadows are computed via software using real-world physics, so the shadows are what the shadows are.   That said I welcome his opinion as well as anyone else's so that I may continue to make these look better.   For what it's worth, see below for some wireframes/etc and, since someone asked, a version I made with base G8 in the scene striking a T-pose :)

     

    and, for kicks, same character model with blonde hair for a change:

     

    Post edited by jeff_someone on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    jeff_someone said:
       For what it's worth, see below for some wireframes/etc and, since someone asked, a version I made with base G8 in the scene striking a T-pose :)

     

     

     

     

    Hahahaha! Weird=))) She looks like one of those Japanese robots:)

  • Siciliano1969Siciliano1969 Posts: 433
    edited July 2019
    jeff_someone said:
    Padone said:
    Siciliano1969 said:

    There is no compositing of any sort in my renders.  They are straight out of Daz; all elements of the scenes are 100% CGI (except for some rare outdoor HDIR scenes which I hardly ever do).  Try as I might I do not understand Padone's comment(s) regarding the 'odd shadows'... no one else has ever mentioned this, nor do I see what he means.  The shadows are computed via software using real-world physics, so the shadows are what the shadows are.   That said I welcome his opinion as well as anyone else's so that I may continue to make these look better.   For what it's worth, see below for some wireframes/etc and, since someone asked, a version I made with base G8 in the scene striking a T-pose :)

    jeff_someone said:

     

     

     

     

    and, for kicks, same character model with blonde hair for a change:

     

    I love that one Jeff!  I love the character as well......plus the fake shadows!  LOL just kidding.  Render looks fantastic and real as usual.  Please keep them coming.

    Post edited by Siciliano1969 on
  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    edited July 2019
    jeff_someone said:

    There is no compositing of any sort in my renders .. The shadows are computed via software using real-world physics ..

    I believe I got it. In your picture you seem to use a very simple light setup with a single light positioned directly behind the camera and probably parented to it, so to get a sort of "flash" effect. This gives the odd shadows. I mean, while it is true that this single light is correctly computed, it is also true that in a real environment you will not have this one single light perfectly aligned to the camera and with nothing else to light the scene. And even a real flash would cast from the side so this makes the difference.

    Aiming for realism is not only to get good shaders and textures. It is also to get a believeable light setup that would match with a real scene. Below a couple of pictures to show what I mean. First the light setup, then the rendering with the light directly behind the camera that gives the odd "silouette" effect, then the rendering with the light just shifted on one side of the camera. In the last picture the shadow is much more "believable".

    scene.jpg
    633 x 307 - 47K
    point-1.jpg
    468 x 350 - 45K
    point-2.jpg
    456 x 363 - 45K
    Post edited by Padone on
  • nickalamannickalaman Posts: 196
    Padone said:
    jeff_someone said:

    There is no compositing of any sort in my renders .. The shadows are computed via software using real-world physics ..

    I believe I got it. In your picture you seem to use a very simple light setup with a single light positioned directly behind the camera and probably parented to it, so to get a sort of "flash" effect. This gives the odd shadows. I mean, while it is true that this single light is correctly computed, it is also true that in a real environment you will not have this one single light perfectly aligned to the camera and with nothing else to light the scene. And even a real flash would cast from the side so this makes the difference.

    Aiming for realism is not only to get good shaders and textures. It is also to get a believeable light setup that would match with a real scene. Below a couple of pictures to show what I mean. First the light setup, then the rendering with the light directly behind the camera that gives the odd "silouette" effect, then the rendering with the light just shifted on one side of the camera. In the last picture the shadow is much more "believable".

    I think it's the flash directly behind the camera that's makes those photos some of the most photo realistic renders i have every seen, we are so used to seeing photos taken from an iPhone with it's flash next to the lens, that looking at those photos tricks the mind to believing that they wee taken with an iphone.

     

  • VisuimagVisuimag Posts: 551

    Some great looking stuff in here!

     

    More of my own:

     

    Party Girl!.png
    3840 x 2160 - 7M
  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    nickalaman said:
    Padone said:
    jeff_someone said:

    There is no compositing of any sort in my renders .. The shadows are computed via software using real-world physics ..

    I believe I got it. In your picture you seem to use a very simple light setup with a single light positioned directly behind the camera and probably parented to it, so to get a sort of "flash" effect. This gives the odd shadows. I mean, while it is true that this single light is correctly computed, it is also true that in a real environment you will not have this one single light perfectly aligned to the camera and with nothing else to light the scene. And even a real flash would cast from the side so this makes the difference.

    Aiming for realism is not only to get good shaders and textures. It is also to get a believeable light setup that would match with a real scene. Below a couple of pictures to show what I mean. First the light setup, then the rendering with the light directly behind the camera that gives the odd "silouette" effect, then the rendering with the light just shifted on one side of the camera. In the last picture the shadow is much more "believable".

    I think it's the flash directly behind the camera that's makes those photos some of the most photo realistic renders i have every seen, we are so used to seeing photos taken from an iPhone with it's flash next to the lens, that looking at those photos tricks the mind to believing that they wee taken with an iphone.

     

    Padone, thanks for taking time to gen up the examples.  You are correct, I typically use a single point light (simulating flash) and thus the shadow is directly behind the subject.  That said, to me it has nothing to do with 'believability'... but to each their own ;)  As Nickalaman said, I went for the 'flesh' look, which to most is more realistic.  My next renders I'm trying a totally new lighting approach... we'll see how it turns out!

     

    Thx - Jeff

     

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    Visuimag said:

    Some great looking stuff in here!

     

    More of my own:

     

    Very nice!!  Realistic and great use of colored lights.

  • CinusCinus Posts: 118
    Visuimag said:

    Some great looking stuff in here!

     

    More of my own:

     

    Fantastic render! Excellent lighting ! Even zoomed in it's hard to tell that it's not an actual picture.

    Is it Murphy by bluejaunte? Looks like her skin, but the face looks different. Might just be the light though :)

  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    edited July 2019
    nickalaman said:

    .. we are so used to seeing photos taken from an iPhone with it's flash next to the lens, that looking at those photos tricks the mind to believing that they wee taken with an iphone.

    jeff_someone said:

    You are correct, I typically use a single point light (simulating flash) and thus the shadow is directly behind the subject.

    Again .. in a real scene the flash will never be the only light source .. That said, apart the fake light setup that produces odd effects, I believe the level of realism especially of the character is impressive.

    Post edited by Padone on
  • MasterstrokeMasterstroke Posts: 1,805
    Padone said:
    nickalaman said:

    .. we are so used to seeing photos taken from an iPhone with it's flash next to the lens, that looking at those photos tricks the mind to believing that they wee taken with an iphone.

    jeff_someone said:

    You are correct, I typically use a single point light (simulating flash) and thus the shadow is directly behind the subject.

    Again .. in a real scene the flash will never be the only light source .. That said, apart the fake light setup that produces odd effects, I believe the level of realism especially of the character is impressive.

    You are correct. He is mostly rendering his characters with the European Appartment scenes, which add light sets. Combining those with that flash light look creates that stunning realism.

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,449
    Masterstroke said:
    Padone said:
    nickalaman said:

    .. we are so used to seeing photos taken from an iPhone with it's flash next to the lens, that looking at those photos tricks the mind to believing that they wee taken with an iphone.

    jeff_someone said:

    You are correct, I typically use a single point light (simulating flash) and thus the shadow is directly behind the subject.

    Again .. in a real scene the flash will never be the only light source .. That said, apart the fake light setup that produces odd effects, I believe the level of realism especially of the character is impressive.

    You are correct. He is mostly rendering his characters with the European Appartment scenes, which add light sets. Combining those with that flash light look creates that stunning realism.

    Sorry if I am misunderstanding your point but @jeff_someone said that he only uses the point light and no others so that would suggest he discards the included lights from the set, right? I think the stunning realism is a combination of superb attention to the skin and that "instant" flash effect we became so used to with film cameras, especially polaroid snaps. I'm not on Instagram but don't they try to achive a similar effect?

  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    edited July 2019
    Masterstroke said:

    Combining those with that flash light look creates that stunning realism.

    I understand Jeff is using the "flash" light alone. That's why there's the odd "outline" shadows as I show in my example. In photography the flash light is intended more a fill light, not as a key light, so it shouldn't cast the main shadow. In a real scene there would be olther lights too acting as fill or key or rim thus giving different effects. The light setup Jeff is using in indoor scenes is rather artificial and not realistic. Indeed the hdri outdoor renderings Jeff posted are much more believable as far as light is concerned.

    Post edited by Padone on
  • notiuswebnotiusweb Posts: 110

    Hi Jeff!  Your shader is the life-bringer, along with the model shape.  Well-done! 

    LOL - That G8F does look like a manequin!  Kind of earie that it is looking at her too...although, they look content at the same time, right?!

  • FrinkkyFrinkky Posts: 388
    edited July 2019
    Padone said:
    Masterstroke said:

    Combining those with that flash light look creates that stunning realism.

    The light setup Jeff is using in indoor scenes is rather artificial and not realistic.

    For a candid photo taken on a point-and-click, in someone's home by their partner, it's quite realistic (and that's the effect I perceive). An example of an unrealistic lighting setup in this situation, would be a full photography studio setup :) 

    I do think having a side lamp provide just a bit of warm illumination in the background would add some needed contrast though.

    Post edited by Frinkky on
  • VisuimagVisuimag Posts: 551
    edited July 2019

    Thank you to the responses (I've since updated that particular view + lighting) and then rendered it with slightly different lighting (seen here). Both turned out closer to my original vision!

    As for the character, it is Sina (by bluejaunte) with my own custom additions in ZBrush. I wish I could upload the originals (all 8K). These cut down versions lose some of the intricacies, unfortunately.

    Party Girl! (v3) Promo (4K).png
    3840 x 2160 - 6M
    Post edited by Visuimag on
  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    Frinkky said:

    For a candid photo taken on a point-and-click, in someone's home by their partner, it's quite realistic ..

    Again no .. in a real bathroom, even with no window, there would be at least one lamp other than the camera flash. What Jeff is simulating is a room with no lights where the flash alone is powerful enough to light up the whole room at a decent iso. That's not the case with any point-and-click camera ..

  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    Padone said:
    Frinkky said:

    For a candid photo taken on a point-and-click, in someone's home by their partner, it's quite realistic ..

    Again no .. in a real bathroom, even with no window, there would be at least one lamp other than the camera flash. What Jeff is simulating is a room with no lights where the flash alone is powerful enough to light up the whole room at a decent iso. That's not the case with any point-and-click camera ..

    I follow this discussion and enjoy the show:) Don't know, though, what your point is? After all this isn't about the real world, is it. Or are you saying jeff is doing it all wrong? If that's the case (and you have the right to your opinion) you are in minority here:)

    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism...we are in the real world, why do we all try so hard to recreate it? Isn't it perfect in itself? LOL

  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    edited August 2019
    Sven Dullah said:
    Don't know, though, what your point is?

    Jeff is absolutely amazing as fas as characters and shaders are concerned, I am not able to give him any suggestion to improve that. But he's weak in lighting, there he can improve to get more realism. So my point is, and I quote myself though I already highlighted it in my previous post ..

    Aiming for realism is not only to get good shaders and textures. It is also to get a believeable light setup that would match with a real scene.

    Sven Dullah said:
    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism

    I don't know .. I myself am more interested in toons cheeky

    Post edited by Padone on
  • marblemarble Posts: 7,449
    edited August 2019
    Sven Dullah said:
    Padone said:
    Frinkky said:

    For a candid photo taken on a point-and-click, in someone's home by their partner, it's quite realistic ..

    Again no .. in a real bathroom, even with no window, there would be at least one lamp other than the camera flash. What Jeff is simulating is a room with no lights where the flash alone is powerful enough to light up the whole room at a decent iso. That's not the case with any point-and-click camera ..

    I follow this discussion and enjoy the show:) Don't know, though, what your point is? After all this isn't about the real world, is it. Or are you saying jeff is doing it all wrong? If that's the case (and you have the right to your opinion) you are in minority here:)

    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism...we are in the real world, why do we all try so hard to recreate it? Isn't it perfect in itself? LOL

    Without trying to preempt @Padone's answer, I think the fact that the thread is about photorealism encourages us to discuss just how photorealistic. Most of us will agree that Jeff's images are astonishingly like photographs but there are small oddities - I also noticed the shadows in his first posted image. Now if you to ask me if that matters then my answer would be, for me, absolutely not. I love the way those images look and appreciate the skill in producing them. I'm not sure that Jeff is even going for absolute realism but rather the impression of a certain type of photography and in that, for me, he succeeds.

    Post edited by marble on
  • Sven DullahSven Dullah Posts: 7,621
    Padone said:
    Sven Dullah said:
    Don't know, though, what your point is?

    Jeff is absolutely amazing as fas as characters and shaders are concerned, I am not able to give him any suggestion to improve that. But he's weak in lighting, there he can improve to get more realism. So my point is, and I quote myself though I already highlighted it in my previous post ..

    Aiming for realism is not only to get good shaders and textures. It is also to get a believeable light setup that would match with a real scene.

    Well, can't argue with that, even if I wanted tolaugh.

    Padone said:
    Sven Dullah said:
    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism

    I don't know .. I myself am more interested in toons cheeky

    Haha, well...on a slight side note...I have a problem with "photorealistic" toon renders=) Maybe I'm just getting old...prefer the old handmade 2D Disney productions to all this new stuff with physically plausible lightingcool

    marble said:
    Sven Dullah said:
    Padone said:
    Frinkky said:

    For a candid photo taken on a point-and-click, in someone's home by their partner, it's quite realistic ..

    Again no .. in a real bathroom, even with no window, there would be at least one lamp other than the camera flash. What Jeff is simulating is a room with no lights where the flash alone is powerful enough to light up the whole room at a decent iso. That's not the case with any point-and-click camera ..

    I follow this discussion and enjoy the show:) Don't know, though, what your point is? After all this isn't about the real world, is it. Or are you saying jeff is doing it all wrong? If that's the case (and you have the right to your opinion) you are in minority here:)

    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism...we are in the real world, why do we all try so hard to recreate it? Isn't it perfect in itself? LOL

    Without trying to preempt @Padone's answer, I think the fact that the thread is about photorealism encourages us to discuss just how photorealistic. Most of us will agree that Jeff's images are astonishingly like photographs but there are small oddities - I also noticed the shadows in his first posted image. Now if you to ask me if that matters then my answer would be, for me, absolutely not. I love the way those images look and appreciate the skill in producing them. I'm not sure that Jeff is even going for absolute realism but rather the impression of a certain type of photography and in that, for me, he succeeds.

    Totally agree, it's a very interesting topic indeed. And the fact that people are mentioning cheating is a credit in it self:D Many of the images posted here would pass as photographs in the right context. I've had my battles with photoreal off and on...as I don't have jeff's skills and patience I end up realizing that characters and hair/clothes are too hard for me, environments are easier as long as there are no people involved:)

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,449
    Sven Dullah said:
    Padone said:
    Sven Dullah said:
    Don't know, though, what your point is?

    Jeff is absolutely amazing as fas as characters and shaders are concerned, I am not able to give him any suggestion to improve that. But he's weak in lighting, there he can improve to get more realism. So my point is, and I quote myself though I already highlighted it in my previous post ..

    Aiming for realism is not only to get good shaders and textures. It is also to get a believeable light setup that would match with a real scene.

    Well, can't argue with that, even if I wanted tolaugh.

    Padone said:
    Sven Dullah said:
    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism

    I don't know .. I myself am more interested in toons cheeky

    Haha, well...on a slight side note...I have a problem with "photorealistic" toon renders=) Maybe I'm just getting old...prefer the old handmade 2D Disney productions to all this new stuff with physically plausible lightingcool

    marble said:
    Sven Dullah said:
    Padone said:
    Frinkky said:

    For a candid photo taken on a point-and-click, in someone's home by their partner, it's quite realistic ..

    Again no .. in a real bathroom, even with no window, there would be at least one lamp other than the camera flash. What Jeff is simulating is a room with no lights where the flash alone is powerful enough to light up the whole room at a decent iso. That's not the case with any point-and-click camera ..

    I follow this discussion and enjoy the show:) Don't know, though, what your point is? After all this isn't about the real world, is it. Or are you saying jeff is doing it all wrong? If that's the case (and you have the right to your opinion) you are in minority here:)

    I myself am more interested in the WHY...why photorealism...we are in the real world, why do we all try so hard to recreate it? Isn't it perfect in itself? LOL

    Without trying to preempt @Padone's answer, I think the fact that the thread is about photorealism encourages us to discuss just how photorealistic. Most of us will agree that Jeff's images are astonishingly like photographs but there are small oddities - I also noticed the shadows in his first posted image. Now if you to ask me if that matters then my answer would be, for me, absolutely not. I love the way those images look and appreciate the skill in producing them. I'm not sure that Jeff is even going for absolute realism but rather the impression of a certain type of photography and in that, for me, he succeeds.

    Totally agree, it's a very interesting topic indeed. And the fact that people are mentioning cheating is a credit in it self:D Many of the images posted here would pass as photographs in the right context. I've had my battles with photoreal off and on...as I don't have jeff's skills and patience I end up realizing that characters and hair/clothes are too hard for me, environments are easier as long as there are no people involved:)

    Funny that I was always bugged by the way conforming clothing draped (or rather, didn't) so I tried all manner of posing and camera angles to try to hide the "sheet-metal" construction of the cloth. Then I bought VWD which constantly crashed on my PC for some reason. Then I thought that dForce was a gift from the gods until I found that it too often ended with explosions. Finally, I bought Marvelous Designer because I just had to have that realism. Tricks and cheats with posing, etc., just doesn't cut it any more. Although I would correct that by saying that a natural look rather than a photo-realistic look is what is important to me. Toons can look natural while some photographs can look unrealistic.

  • thomasbrandy287@yahoo.com[email protected] Posts: 58
    Visuimag said:

    Thank you to the responses (I've since updated that particular view + lighting) and then rendered it with slightly different lighting (seen here). Both turned out closer to my original vision!

    As for the character, it is Sina (by bluejaunte) with my own custom additions in ZBrush. I wish I could upload the originals (all 8K). These cut down versions lose some of the intricacies, unfortunately.

    Excellent work! I like more this version, the yellow light color doesn't fit so well in the first pic.(Maybe the left tooth is too up)

  • cdreid1cdreid1 Posts: 10

    There are some amazing renders in this thread. As a guy who has been into photography on and off for decades (3d, cad , rendering etc too actually though not at yalls level)... can i offer some advice?

    First: Real pics are rarely ever perfect. You see that softness in professional images? Its either a filter or literally vaseline on the lense combined with some techniques. In one of the near perfect renders the girls jawline looks "weird".. that Exact effect could happen in a real photo. On the other side some people massively overdo the "detail". Skin that looks like its worn by a hiroshima survivor. Wrinkles and "details" that look like they have a disease. Etc.  A little softness helps. Realistic imperfections help. Randomness helps. But if you make what some of you would consider "perfect realism" it will look fake as hell. like 90% of the videos i see where some idiot claims some software produces perfect photorealism.. of an interior consisting of tons of flat white and mirror surfaces etc that dont look remotely photoreal

  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,481
    cdreid1 said:

    As a guy who has been into photography on and off for decades (3d, cad , rendering etc too actually though not at yalls level)... can i offer some advice?

    It also depends if one is trying to create a "camera" realism or a "human eye" realism .. though in most of what you say I agree.

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 17,929

    Most of what Jeff_Someone's doing different from the rest of us for realism is in the lighting and camera focus. You can see that. My attempts thus far have failed at what Jeff does. However, some modern digital photos & videos actually do look like 'DAZ 3D' models come to life because they are so high resolution, sharply focused and clear. The DAZ models have some key details missing or wrong though that distinguishes them still from those high resolution clearly focused digital pictures.

  • WavejumperWavejumper Posts: 6

    Jeff, which settings are you typically using for your pointlight? And do you offset it from the camera at all?

  • WavejumperWavejumper Posts: 6

    I'm also interested in the actual camera settings, doing anything special there?

Sign In or Register to comment.