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
Experiment to run:
Create an image of a human.
Render in BW
Render in Sepia
Render in Color.
Most likely the BW and Sepia images will look more "Real" while the Color will not.
The main reasons? The color of the light, followed by differing intensities between foreground and background elements.
Our eyes easily compensate for light color naturally. Under specific lights, skin color is changed. Under fluorescent lights skin will shift to the green, under incandescent, to the yellow. Sodium -> Orange. Sunlight looks different at differing hours and conditions. Our eyes perceive this and compensate.
When rendering, too often we forget to make the light color match the environment and/or the intensity of the surrounding light. I work with photographers often and it is all too easy to make photographs look "fake." Simply forget to white balance the camera, and you will be staring at a "renderesque" photo. Pumpkin monster basketball players, wraith colored Cheerleaders, Alien school children, luminescent wigs/toupees of Administrators. It is all there. From professional "photo-realistic" equipment.
Another thing people forget in rendering: Makeup. On women/actors, SSS is destroyed by the makeup they wear. Foundation and powder will stop pretty much all SSS as well change the reflectivity of the skin.
Just a few things to think about.
Kendall
Oh...and all those fine details...pores, 'laugh lines', little crinkles by the eyes...makeup removes those, too (after, isn't that what it is for?)
Which one looks "real"?
Oh...and all those fine details...pores, 'laugh lines', little crinkles by the eyes...makeup removes those, too (after, isn't that what it is for?)
Right. And yet many textures have lips and eyes with coloration that is obviously not natural. When we see "overly red" lips on an otherwise normal skin, our minds cry "makeup" and yet we see SSS, pores, etc. The dichotomy rips us out of the illusion.
Kendall
Ok I have been listening to various suggestions and the pro's and con's of this thread when it comes to how it's even possible to create realistic renders, with Daz and perhaps other programs. There seems to be something you are all missing and I know this was brought up before long ago. To have a realistic render, it's not just the textures or just the lights, etc. It's a combination of things. Ever hold you hand up to a light? The outer layers of skin are translucent, something that is hard to accomplish in any type of program, but is doable. Reflection and refraction is important. How light and surrounding colors interact with skin, eyes, shadows, etc. The SSS shaders have come a long way in creating a good enough texture you can get close to realism in your images. This is something that can be done in both Poser and Daz, I do not know about other programs. I also do not know enough about shaders to say much other then they are producing some great results these days. I believe the uber lights are much better then the standard one's, a more realistic quality can be accomplished with them.
Tee Timo...out of all those images you posted in your first post, the breaking bad one does not look real to me. Been racking my brain trying to figure out why it does not look real to me and I just figured out why. The character is standing outside in what could be a desert or some area around Las Vegas. The lighting on the skin and the skin itself are wrong for that scene. The amount of heat that is in that area of the country, there should be a sheen of perspiration on the skin and the skin all over that image looks dry. Considering the direction of the light, there is none reflected on the glass of the glasses and on the rim should be brighter. There should be more of a translucent effect on the ear and tiny viens in appearance. The other three images are great, I honestly could not tell they were renders and not photo's.
Edit: And yes I know Rashad Carter also mentioned interaction which is basically what I am saying...but with less words...lol
The rim...yeah, but the lenses...with all the available options these days with 'no glare', 'anti-glare', Crizal and what not (I wear glasses and the array of options for this last pair was absolutely dizzying) make that old stand-by 'measure of reality' kind of meaning less.
The rim...yeah, but the lenses...with all the available options these days with 'no glare', 'anti-glare', Crizal and what not (I wear glasses and the array of options for this last pair was absolutely dizzying) make that old stand-by 'measure of reality' kind of meaning less.
Perception is reality. Just because it is very real that the lenses could be in bright light without glare, it doesn't change the fact that in human perception, the glare would add perceptual realism to the image, especially when the very question is about how real the image looks.
If the facial skin is bare it may have anything from a faint to highly oily sheen depending upon skin type and any products used on the skin.
As Kendall noted, make up removes this and most cosmetic products strive to give an airbrushed finish. Why does the one image require a sheen of perspiration? Other than the subject is standing outside in the sunshine, there doesn't appear to be any reason for the him to be perspiring.
The very top picture is only a basic Poser render that has been heavily postworked. It is in fact a promo for the actual Postwork Tutorial sold over at Rendo.
You're forgetting the man behind the keyboard in the lot. There are physical facts that are not known by most or deliberately ignored (less complicated). And there are DS limitations which means that you have to do it yourself in one way or another. But you have to know something is missing or is not right and willing to correct it. You have to ask yourself what you should see and find a way to achieve it whether it is by postwork or faking techniques or using another engine. Try to render a diamond with chromatic aberration or dispersion with the actual tools in studio to see what I mean
As for skin translucency, the real thing is more complicated as you have your bones and other things blocking the light and you're only rendering a thin 3D surface which has no physical property. As a reminder, Prman and thus 3delight were made to have a lot of control over the shading and rendering process and privilege faking shafing technique. Not for physical accuracy (not counting the latest Prman and that is not what we have). So you have to know the limits of your engine or the techniques you use and know where to begin faking things.
My take on skin translucency under, rendered with 3delight. Just one IBL and two distant lights, one in front and one in the back. The effect is only visible at some camera angle. Try to do that in studio and you'll see there are limitations you can't ignore. And I have a long list of these
Sometimes it is quicker to use 2D postwork techniques to achieve what you want.
Perception is reality. Just because it is very real that the lenses could be in bright light without glare, it doesn't change the fact that in human perception, the glare would add perceptual realism to the image, especially when the very question is about how real the image looks.
Yes...but how soon will it be before the glare becomes an indicator of 'faked' reality...it's there because it's supposed to be, but 'modern' glasses don't have it any longer?
My point was, just because it wasn't there doesn't mean it has to be a render...glareless lenses are probably going to be the 'standard' ones in the not too distant future.
Okay based on realism in rendering and real world with glasses. I concede that you have glasses coated to remove glare, however, would it remove the reflected scene the person is facing. My glasses are cheap and don't have that coating to remove the glare, so can not state yes or no myself. It would not have to be bright like with the reflection in eyes, yet it seems there should be an image, even faintly on the glasses. Of course the glasses would have to have some type of curve to it, as I don't believe flat glass would show reflection...I might be wrong on that count...lol
As to oily shine or perspiration on the one image. I based my assumption on the background image...outside, desert type scene, generally (to me) means heat. Glasses block a breeze from reaching the eye area (in some cases) and would show a sheen under them.
Perception is reality. Just because it is very real that the lenses could be in bright light without glare, it doesn't change the fact that in human perception, the glare would add perceptual realism to the image, especially when the very question is about how real the image looks.
Yes...but how soon will it be before the glare becomes an indicator of 'faked' reality...it's there because it's supposed to be, but 'modern' glasses don't have it any longer?
My point was, just because it wasn't there doesn't mean it has to be a render...glareless lenses are probably going to be the 'standard' ones in the not too distant future.
I found your discussion helpful because it helped me to define something in my own thought process. Thanks for that.
With respect to your point of view, if that is a 'standard' then it forgets the most basic principle of human anatomy... that your eye has a lens, called, "eye lenses".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(anatomy)
The eye naturally perceives depth, so while you are focused on one thing, another thing is distorted naturally, having a kind of fuzzy feal so you can tell near from far. Depth perception is a very natural part of realism you would be forgetting. It won't be my standard.
It sounds to me like what you are thinking of is the limitations of many modern cameras as compared to the human eye.
One method puts you inside a camera and the other puts you inside the eye perspective. I'm sure that both views have their uses.
I hope you have a beautiful day. Take care and be blessed.
Oh...and all those fine details...pores, 'laugh lines', little crinkles by the eyes...makeup removes those, too (after, isn't that what it is for?)
Which one looks "real"?
I like the color one the best but I'd like to see a wider variation in your light. If you have it, try
http://www.daz3d.com/real-light-hdr-gels-bulbs
(make sure to also get advanced spotlight if you don't have it.. its required)
It will take a minor investment if you don't have it but it will definitely make that color render "Pop". Brilliant all of you! Happy rendering and thanks for explaining things so clearly.
I was specifically referring to eyeglass lenses. The variety that has very little to no glare and isn't all that reflective is becoming more than just an expensive add-on.
You're forgetting the man behind the keyboard in the lot. There are physical facts that are not known by most or deliberately ignored (less complicated). And there are DS limitations which means that you have to do it yourself in one way or another. But you have to know something is missing or is not right and willing to correct it. You have to ask yourself what you should see and find a way to achieve it whether it is by postwork or faking techniques or using another engine. Try to render a diamond with chromatic aberration or dispersion with the actual tools in studio to see what I mean
As for skin translucency, the real thing is more complicated as you have your bones and other things blocking the light and you're only rendering a thin 3D surface which has no physical property. As a reminder, Prman and thus 3delight were made to have a lot of control over the shading and rendering process and privilege faking shafing technique. Not for physical accuracy (not counting the latest Prman and that is not what we have). So you have to know the limits of your engine or the techniques you use and know where to begin faking things.
My take on skin translucency under, rendered with 3delight. Just one IBL and two distant lights, one in front and one in the back. The effect is only visible at some camera angle. Try to do that in studio and you'll see there are limitations you can't ignore. And I have a long list of these
Sometimes it is quicker to use 2D postwork techniques to achieve what you want.
I really love all the points you address and that cut to the very core of the issue.. Where do start 'faking it'. For example, I LOVE characters that have hair on the character map, including that option on the head which if left looks incredibly fake... but when placed under one of our many different hair pieces, now gives my maybe 2d hairline roots into the scalp.
My experience has led me to prefer 'faking it' starts at character skin. The only skins I really love are the elite series and I'm really hoping to see some wonderful ethnic variations for Genesis 2. It's just a matter of time before somebody comes out with the new MODEL SERIES characters... wonder which one of you will lead the way?
It seems to me that we could be making it really easy on the end user by also selling entire scenes where all the user would have to do is change the poses and the camera angles.. The easier it becomes, the more people will take it up and the more everybody benefits from an open art community formed around free software and a generous spirit.
“If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?”
― Rumi
I really love all the points you address and that cut to the very core of the issue.. Where do start 'faking it'. For example, I LOVE characters that have hair on the character map, including that option on the head which if left looks incredibly fake... but when placed under one of our many different hair pieces, now gives my maybe 2d hairline roots into the scalp.
My experience has led me to prefer 'faking it' starts at character skin. The only skins I really love are the elite series and I'm really hoping to see some wonderful ethnic variations for Genesis 2. It's just a matter of time before somebody comes out with the new MODEL SERIES characters... wonder which one of you will lead the way?
It seems to me that we could be making it really easy on the end user by also selling entire scenes where all the user would have to do is change the poses and the camera angles.. The easier it becomes, the more people will take it up and the more everybody benefits from an open art community formed around free software and a generous spirit.
“If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?”
― Rumi
How does it benefit the community when things progress to the point that I can be a lazy @ss and by a pre-made scene? Because that really wouldn't bring in more artists, it'd bring in people who won't contribute anything but "canned" renders. That doesn't benefit anyone if they aren't learning and growing and creating new ideas and techniques and such.
How does it benefit the community when things progress to the point that I can be a lazy @ss and by a pre-made scene? Because that really wouldn't bring in more artists, it'd bring in people who won't contribute anything but "canned" renders. That doesn't benefit anyone if they aren't learning and growing and creating new ideas and techniques and such.
❥•♪♫¸¸.☆¸.✫¨´`'*°☆.`❥•♪♫♥♥
"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."
— Leonardo da Vinci
❥•♪♫¸¸.☆¸.✫¨´`'*°☆.`❥•♪♫♥♥
I've learned a lot by picking apart other peoples work... call it 'reverse engineering'. Just because you wet peoples beaks with pre-packaged goodies doesn't mean they will forever just change the poses and hit render... they will take elements from different packages and combine them into one or delete bits and add other characters or furniture... whatever they want. Anything that helps you or DAZ 3d become better artist also benefits me as more products come online for me to purchase and use in my own work. You must realize that as a community it is a symbiotic relationship.
In other words, it benefits me to ensure DAZ can continue to deliver low cost items for my art work and I've seen the competition.. this is a very expensive industry which is why I like telling people on the ground floor about free software to get them started. Like poker it takes a moment to learn and a lifetime to master.
Great talking to you and I love your point of view. I'm grateful you're sharing it with me.
DAZ sells Ready to Render or RTR scenes here in their store. If you already own everything need for it (a list is given on the Product page) or you buy it, you simply install all the content, click the RTR icon and let the scene render.
Beautiful artwork in a few clicks of the mouse has been one of the key points since DAZ did it's first press release for DS. When the beta version of DS had the Egyptian content, it had one pre-done scene. The Fairy Forest content had 3 pre-done scenes. The V4 Quickstart beach scene was their first RTR. Click the icon and the app went to town.
DS4 had at least 4 RTR's at one point. 2 Fiery Genesis versions and 2 Dragonslayer versions (or something like that). Problem I've always seen with the RTR scenes is who owns the copyright. If 10 users render the RTR out of the box, do each of those 10 users own the copyright? Does DAZ retain the copyright? I've wondered because MR's require users to change the MR content to an extent to make the product derived from the MR "theirs". I don't see anything on the RTR product pages that require users to make changes to the original RTR to make the image "theirs".
You can only learn so much from a pre-made scene. You still need a good grounding in the basics like scene composition, lighting, posing, textures, cameras.
In other words...paint by numbers vs. from concept to finished canvas...
What is wrong with simplicity? This is why I enjoy Luxrendering
And - the most important thing, to me - facial expression.
It's not always easy to get an expression right using built-in morph dials; neither is it always a guaranteed success with deformers, custom morphing in external programs etc. But a lot of the time, many people just seem not to invest that much effort into it :((
I find it especially sad when the image is of a "story-telling" kind. It's a bit like those second-rate movies... there may be great lighting, special FX, camera angles - but the actors are so-so, at best.
It's not a problem exclusive to 3D - traditional artists face it, as well. I'd say the advice they´re usually given would be most beneficial to us all, too:
Do a lot of expression studies. You always have a model for that - yourself.
...I would also dare suggest practicing actual pencil sketches, too. Even if just "stick figures" - there exist certain very simplistic cartoon styles that nevertheless manage to convey the characters' emotions vividly. There's a "feel" to expressions; I believe they might come easier in 3D, if you have practiced capturing them in those few squiggly lines.
Then - a whole load of biased views incoming, read at your own risk - a lot of the time the thing that definitely throws me off is the actual character morph. It actually seems to have become better with Genesis onwards, and it was never much of an issue with Gen3 Stephanie or David, but Michael and Victoria appear to me to have always had those markedly "doll-like", "inhuman" faces (for lack of better words). Especially the Gen3 versions and (the queen of it all) V4. I mean, it _is_ possible to morph all these figures into something less conspicuous even with just the default mophs++, but it takes way more than just a couple dial spins, generally.
I'm not saying they are "bad-looking" by default, but definitely not "realistic" in the sense that I don't see that many people around that look like them. Maybe it's a cultural bias (I'm in Russia), or something else entirely... but I've often been able to tell the base figure at a glance.
The "realistic" morphs of Aiko3 and Hiro3 are also recognisable like that, but then, not many people are trying to pass them for "regular humans". In their case, it's more of a "feature" rather than a "bug", IMO =)
Okay, enough rambling =)
Nope...not cultural.
It's just a 'monetary' thing...there aren't that many people willing to pay some plastic surgeon the amount it would take to 'idealize' their face as much...to get close...look at the movie industry, there are a few more approaching the Gen4 look there than in the general populace (although, I tend to think most of those have the acting ability that matches their appearances...rather plastic---but that's just me).
I am not really interested in reproducing a photo, I just like having silly fun
In other words...paint by numbers vs. from concept to finished canvas...
A lot of people accuse us of being nothing more than paint by numbers artists now. I guess I've seen one too many bad renders on sites like DA where clearly no effort was made to try to make "good", just to show Vicky in another sex position. I always think that at least you could try to make her not look plastic. Think I'm just overly sensitive about it all.
Wait. You mean Gen4 are supposed to be "idealised"?? As in "desirable" (oh, the shades of meaning)?
I used to think they were just patterned after a generic head made to reflect a classic canon of proportion. So I'd have said nobody really gets surgery to look like "that white head prop" from their arts classroom... or do they? =)
Having said that, I confess to actually not keeping up with the mainstream movie industry. If I watch something, it's mostly TV shows, and a lot of them are British, so nothing like Gen4 either =) The Brits tend to have those rather unique faces IMO.
The most US-produced mainstream it gets for me is Star Wars, Star Trek (the original series and Voyager), House, Bones, Castle, Good Wife and Mentalist... there's that Amanda Righetti lady in the Mentalist cast that does look somewhat V4-ish (I'm not sure if it's just the looks or the acting ability LOL), and that's just about all, I think. I've seen some characters from these done for Gen4 within a reasonable likeness, and it's generally been a helluva lot of work.
There's that Turkish show, Magnificent Century, which I believe to be quite akin to a beauty pageant (at least, to my continental European eye), regarding both male and female cast. I keep meaning to steal some faces from there for my character library... I wonder how Gen4-compatible these will be.
This, indeed.
And then, a lot of people believe that if a render artist is using premade content, it's all about "pinups". And then you might argue till you're blue in the face that you actually wanted to tell a story... but the only comments you're going to get is "Your character is hot!"
I agree WM I seen so many renders that does not even employ lighting or textures. Like Wendy I do this for fun it allows me to make long winded stories with decent quality...
Greetings,
Meh... I most often render pinups, partly because the renders come out of playing with content I've picked up, instead of starting with a story, so the characters don't have 'motivations' to do anything more than sit there. So...yeah, I'm the 'paint by numbers' type, and pinup type, and my characters are often a bit plastic. So the trifecta... Heap your scorn upon me, I can take it. :)
More seriously, I am almost never going for photo-real. I'm happy if I can get an image from my head into the computer close enough that I recognize it. If I do it well enough that others like it, for whatever reason, then I'm thrilled. It's turned out that some of the images in my head (that aren't flagrant pulchritude, as I've been doing a bunch of lately) are a little disturbing, which isn't a great feeling, either. And would be worse, the more photo-real the renders were...
All in all, it's not the exclusive desire of folks working with 3D tools to be true-to-life. It's okay to show fanciful people doing fantastic things, or just being.
-- Morgan
All too often I see flat, boring renders with no attention paid to lighting or even setting a decent scene. I always enjoy checking out others artwork when it's had some effort put in. Sometimes I even pick up a few useful tips along the way for my own.
All too often I see flat, boring renders with no attention paid to lighting or even setting a decent scene. I always enjoy checking out others artwork when it's had some effort put in. Sometimes I even pick up a few useful tips along the way for my own.
Just the fact of a pretty body and/or pretty face on the screen neither adds nor subtracts merit from my perspective. I work in 3d on human figures. I'm completely desensitized to these visuals if that's all that's in the scene.
So what I look at when I look at a scene is never going to be "Is the subject hot?" but "is the lighting good, and are they in a pose a human or humanlike person can reasonably adopt? Does the background look real and physical, or are they hovering in 3d space? Did they obviously put a visual fetish they have ahead of any kind of render quality?"
There are artists who do the bishiest of bishi renders (my own visual preference) and I just pass over them, and there are female pinups I shower with praise because they are good artistic renders. Now, if it's something that REALLY turns me off (I follow several artists with very different preferences from mine), I'm less likely to comment, but even those I will praise if they're a super good render.
Cypherfox, I think a lot of yours are pretty good, or I wouldn't be following you. The lighting never looks perfunctory.
Cypher your kind of like I am some decent stuff that tells stories I am perfectly fine doing this using "virtual dolls"