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
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
- President John F. Kennedy
I tag my pictures this way because I love seeing my name on my art. When you see one of my pictures, you know who made it. LOL Let us help other people to overcome their fear of being wrong because that is the greatest obstacle we all need to overcome.
I tend to be real forgiving of my own transgressions.
One of the most important things in this life that you can do is, walk your own path and be yourself, whatever that may be as long as it is truthful to who you are. For each of us, this leads us on a unique path and it's not something I can define in brief thoughts.
May the creative spirit bless you. May the spirit make its being shine through you to all those around you in truth, peace, abundance and hope. I call this the cardinal angel. Can you tell I love this outfit? Thanks for the feedback but even the misspelling of my name is purposeful. Hope you like this angel for your collection.
The enormity and placement of the signature draws the eye away from the subject and the colors don't seem to match anything in the image. It looks like a stamp that has disregard for the subject. Conformity may a jailer but it may also be a guideline for your benefit and the benefit of your viewer.
The biggest issue I've found with a lot of automatic conversions, Reality especially, is that the gloss tends to be very high by default. What this means is that it reflects a lot of the light, leading to washed out colours and, in extreme cases sheer, white surfaces. The lighting especially needs to be tweaked since you have to think very differently when using a physically based engine.
It's possible to get extremely vibrant colours using Luxrender, but it does require learning a little bit about the engine you're using rather than relying on presets. I've included an example. It's not the best example of realism, but it does show that bright colours aren't outside Lux's capabilities.
For me personally, I don't think LuxRender is worth the time its going to take to first off have to learn what works in it but then to have to recolor all my clothing, sets and props each time I want to render a scene? Sorry but when I add in that LuxRender generally takes longer just to get started then most of my renders take to make and then I have to wait to see if the colors take and also allow HOURS to let one picture render... Sorry but you can't sell me on that garbage program. To me, offers too little, too slow and now your telling me too complicated since I'll have to go and purchase shaders I don't even know where to buy.
I appreciate your point of view but the difference to me simply isn't worth it when I'd rather export to Vue which I also own... but I really am happy with 3delight and I don't get why so many people are down on it.. I like the renders that come out of it. I mean, this one only took a minute to render and I didn't have to do any post work or change any colors and spend hours in preperation having to redo the dozens of colored objects in just that barn, much less all the clothing.. No way for me. LuxRender sucks.
As stated, you need to work on the materials. As an example, take a look at this jet exhaust in this image:
http://ndelphi.deviantart.com/art/Arriving-Escort-Closeup-424626990
That jet exhaust was never going to work as a direct translation to LuxRender via Reality 2.5. To get that level of realism the mask and the diffuse image has to be merged in a program like Photoshop. You then turn the jet exhaust object into a light source and use the newly merged image with your jet exhaust light source.
I believe in Reality 3 you will not have to go the extra step with merging images you need to use with light sources.
And, the more light sources in your render the longer it will take.
I been using the luxrender for 2 years I built a machine with a good heat sync. I always lets queue renders run while I am sleeping or at work then tweak noise with the refine brush. I also use a sig but its small and out of the way.
As stated, you need to work on the materials. As an example, take a look at this jet exhaust in this image:
http://ndelphi.deviantart.com/art/Arriving-Escort-Closeup-424626990
That jet exhaust was never going to work as a direct translation to LuxRender via Reality 2.5. To get that level of realism the mask and the diffuse image has to be merged in a program like Photoshop. You then turn the jet exhaust object into a light source and use the newly merged image with your jet exhaust light source.
I believe in Reality 3 you will not have to go the extra step with merging images you need to use with light sources.
And, the more light sources in your render the longer it will take.
WOW! I really love that. How did you manage to do an atmosphere in LuxRender????? Much less how did you do a sun?
For me, I do the same thing by exporting to Vue.
I have to admit that yours looks absolutely BRILLIANT.
I cheated :).
The environment is Skies of Reality Two. There are several light sources in that image, including the warning lights on the Shuttlestar. Subtle, but they are there, I also left the cockpit lights on, even though you can't see them from the angle of the camera.
The Sun that you see is part of the IBL image. The real sunlight is coming from a mesh-light just above the IBL's sun. I had to work out the color to match the sun to the image. So even though I used Skies of Reality Two, I still had to get creative.
Frankly I think your image is the one with more going on than the one I used as an example. I like it very much!
In LuxRender I can adjust the lights and tonality of a render while it renders, I can change the film type to a litany of chemical treatments used by film developers because it behaves the same way light and film and exposure work in real life and I can adjust in real time: 3Delight is incapable of that inside Studio, it requires you to do all that in post, there is no way around it. 3Delight does not even support network rendering in Studio.
I cheated :).
The environment is Skies of Reality Two. There are several light sources in that image, including the warning lights on the Shuttlestar. Subtle, but they are there, I also left the cockpit lights on, even though you can't see them from the angle of the camera.
The Sun that you see is part of the IBL image. The real sunlight is coming from a mesh-light just above the IBL's sun. I had to work out the color to match the sun to the image. So even though I used Skies of Reality Two, I still had to get creative.
Frankly I think your image is the one with more going on than the one I used as an example. I like it very much!
Well for 'cheating', you did damn great work. Personally, I have to be honest and admit that I haven't exported to Vue in a while but when it comes to building atmospheres and hills with vegetation, you can't beat it.
Some of my favorite old renders are DAZ characters, (this one is Genesis) put into a Vue atmosphere.
For me personally, I don't think LuxRender is worth the time its going to take to first off have to learn what works in it but then to have to recolor all my clothing, sets and props each time I want to render a scene? Sorry but when I add in that LuxRender generally takes longer just to get started then most of my renders take to make and then I have to wait to see if the colors take and also allow HOURS to let one picture render... Sorry but you can't sell me on that garbage program. To me, offers too little, too slow and now your telling me too complicated since I'll have to go and purchase shaders I don't even know where to buy.
I appreciate your point of view but the difference to me simply isn't worth it when I'd rather export to Vue which I also own... but I really am happy with 3delight and I don't get why so many people are down on it.. I like the renders that come out of it. I mean, this one only took a minute to render and I didn't have to do any post work or change any colors and spend hours in preperation having to redo the dozens of colored objects in just that barn, much less all the clothing.. No way for me. LuxRender sucks.
That was really disrespectful to call LuxRender a "garbage" program when a lot of us use and love it, especially since I thought your entire belief was for each person to do it their way?
Secondly, the entire point of LuxRender and the reason it takes longer to render is because it uses real world physics light and calculations rather than fake it the way biased renders do. And I don't know where you got that whole "having to change every surface" stuff from,but it's just not necessarily true. There are benefits to using Lux-specific materials, but I use LuxRender with Poser, and I've yet to do a render where I've changed every surface.
Just because you don't want to use a certain method, trashing it just isn't fair.
I'm quite happy with the results I get with Reality 2.0 and LuxRender. There is a learning curve, but it I like what it produces.
I'm sorry Wheelman and you are right, to each there own but I still feel that LuxRender isn't worth MY time and effort.
Other people clearly like to spend hours tweaking pictures to get it 'just right'.. I'm not one of them. I'd rather export to Vue, load an atmosphere and render.. I don't see what wrong with making things easy so long as the results are nice. But if I'm not concerned about the atmosphere then DAZ Studio's 3delight works brilliantly.
It should be interesting what I can come up with these days now that I'm using HD characters instead of these old low poly objects.
I really like your render too. I like the results you get from the program but I also don't care for the dull colors, long render times and added time you have to spend tweaking materials. The question for me is, "Is it worth that little bit of added realism?" and when I consider it next to all the other faster options, its not even a second thought. Where you can only crank out one picture after several hours, I've done several and I really like the quality too. I wouldn't say one is better than the other and I do own Lux if I ever wanted to use it.
For me, I'd much rather use a better program where I can alter all the materials and create complex atmospheres that simply aren't possible in LuxRender.
Our time is very important too. How much of that do you invest in a single picture thats great because it is a little slice of realism but missing the more complex nature of the world.
Start to finish on that was about 1 hour, including posing, dressing, morphing and lighting and rendering in Reality.
People don't climb mountains because it's easy, they climb them because it's hard. Don't dismiss the fact thst a lot of people not only enjoy a challenge, but thrive and grow from them. Also keep in mind that there is probably few, if any, "easy" things in this life thst weren't made easy for you by people who first did it the hard way.
We mostly agree on this subject and I love where this topic has gone, but you should really consider not dismissing the hard way. As a disabled person, pretty much everything for me is done the hard way. Anything that is done he hard way shouldn't be looked down upon just because you prefer the easy way.
Oh, and I own Vue too, but I haven't learned how to use it yet. But I need to because I can use it too. Doesn't in any way make LuxRender less appealing or useful , however.
You mean in Lux.....The one I posted above took me 3 but there is alot of geometry and material conversions
This is a Lux render.
My thought on signatures. Like many aspects of art it is a subjective decision to be made by the artist, however if the viewer's experience is of concern it might be worth considering how it is perceived. I think for many people, large bright text on an artistic render is like someone screaming in your ear, it's borderline rude, like writing a long e-mail in all caps. It is more acceptable on a book cover or maybe an advertisement but I think it highly detracts from art. Sometimes I see an image that looks so good I really want to favorite it on dA and then follow that artist but then if it has a large signature or even a distracting watermark I just move along because the experience of viewing the art is ruined for me. I might be a bit extreme on this though.
My thoughts on LuxRender. I will say that in most cases, images that have come closest to fooling me into thinking they are real photos use an unbiased engine. It's physics based so it handles all those subtitles of light more accurately. If you are really concerned with realism I do think it is one of the best options, however I understand you simply might not have the time to deal with it. I'm no master of Reality/Lux but it really did not take me that long at all to get the basics down just going through the user manual. Rendering overnight helps. Skies of reality is a great start for outdoor scenes. Here is an example render I did in Reality but I did a lot of post work which takes away from it and the character is not realistic so not sure how well it works with my style: http://swawa3d.deviantart.com/art/Delicious-357382699
@snowpheonix I have to ask on that image you shown that was all blown out... were you using Reality? If so did you try messing with the Tone Mapping? You can set Kernel to Linear and then adjust ISO, Shutter, f-stop, and gama to instantly make a huge difference with that live while rendering. Also adjustments to light groups can help. That's one thing that can actually save time with Reality is that you can make all these changes live while rendering. You also can pause and resume and I can at least do light work on my system while reality renders unlike 3Delight.
I usually use 3Delight because I actually prefer that it is not realistically accurate, it allows me to cheat more and focus more on what I think artistically works best for my image rather then just making it look real. Also I think it fits my toon style. I might experiment more with reality/lux at some point.
Greetings,
...
Well, I found that Reality 2.x doesn't translate DAZ Studio textures very well (it seems to sometimes miss displacement, and a few other issues), but Luxus does a MUCH better job.
But here's the rub, and I think it's one of the things that you're missing @snow; in order for an image to look good in LuxRender, you have to pay attention to real lighting, and that's something you've commonly stated that you don't want to do. I typically render with 3Delight, but I spent the time to understand how to work with LuxRender, and it is very powerful, and the lighting process makes worlds more sense than 3Delight if you have any photographic awareness at all.
It takes time to render, but I render overnight all the time, no matter the renderer. Yes, your image took one minute to render, but it has almost nothing in it, it's very low resolution, and the lighting misses the mark.
And this is where I go off the rails a bit... If you are looking for realistic, 'I can fool you' images, LuxRender is the one to use for it's absolutely faithful replication of lighting behavior. I love using 3Delight, and it's an excellent, fast, 'good enough' quality renderer, and since that's what I am going for (as described in too much verbiage above), it's what I use.
But there's another aspect of this, a psychological one... Knowing that your render is going to take time. Real, legitimate time, even if it's over-night, is a 'forcing function'. It makes you think about your scene, makes you detail it out, makes you more aware of everything you're putting in it, how it fits together. You have to care about the details up front, instead of making throwaway renders. Care takes time. Thinking you can throw something together in 2-3 minutes and render in another minute makes you careless, and doesn't just make for unrealistic renders, it makes for unappealing ones.
You want people to see your scene, move their eye through the picture, like a happy maze. Wrong lighting acts like walls thrown up to block progress through areas that should be traversed. (So does a huge brightly colored signature, by the way.) In order to get remotely correct lighting in 3Delight, it takes a lot of actual work, and about as much rendering time as LuxRender.
There are no shortcuts to quality.
-- Morgan
People don't climb mountains because it's easy, they climb them because it's hard. Don't dismiss the fact thst a lot of people not only enjoy a challenge, but thrive and grow from them. Also keep in mind that there is probably few, if any, "easy" things in this life thst weren't made easy for you by people who first did it the hard way.
We mostly agree on this subject and I love where this topic has gone, but you should really consider not dismissing the hard way. As a disabled person, pretty much everything for me is done the hard way. Anything that is done he hard way shouldn't be looked down upon just because you prefer the easy way.
Oh, and I own Vue too, but I haven't learned how to use it yet. But I need to because I can use it too. Doesn't in any way make LuxRender less appealing or useful , however.
I really like you and a lot of the people around here... You know what I think it is about LuxRender? It's not 3delight. Is it better? No, its just different. LuxRender can make some very striking images and it is a excellent medium for many artist and while the light actions may be more realistic in those crisp pictures, it does come at a cost.
What people aren't really saying is that the cost of LuxRender is massive time investments. Things that look simply brilliant in DAZ lack depth, color and personality in Lux. The colors are hard to manage and in most cases dull which can be remedied by changing materials and outfits until you have a combination that works right for you. LuxRender also might highlight things that look 3d in 3delight but are clearly 2 dimensional in Lux.
Is it more realistic? It can be if you invest a hell of a lot of time and energy but for the most part... No, its just not the same old thing I've been rendering, it looks shiny and new. I mean, as long as your happy with the pictures you make, that really should be the only thing that matters.
It's been a lot of fun talking to all you.. thanks for putting up with me.
Oh and if you do have Vue then go crank it up because it's even easier to use then DAZ Studio is but you've got to have certain set ups for it to be any good. I'm actually running a picture in LuxRender.. I'll comment more later. Peace
You forgot something added it for you enjoy!!! (hope you have a sense of humor:) I dont agree tha using lux is only for photo realistic stuff. I just find its easier to produce slick looking stuff overall...
I LOVE what you do. I would use different skins but I LOVE what you do. You're whole miniaturized character story is brilliant. :)
Thanks man and that's fair cause I dont worry about it so much I just go for overall and it does work for what I need. Its based on an old show "Land of the giants" I produce large stories / episodes and still manage to use lux. I still use 3Dlight for the odd render (The green rat people) but lux gives me a slick overall look I cant get out of 3Dlight in some cases (the KK render)
LuxRender and 3Delight do not share the same algorithm for determining bumps and displacements, no rendering engine does, and I've never had any issue Reality missing displacements, but I have encountered LuxRender (ver 1.2) unable to render some of them and that's not the fault of Reality, the problem was fixed in the release of LuxRender 1.3.1.
Luxus does a different job of interpreting materials but looking at the renders I would not say it does a much better job, Honestly the ones I seen so far from Luxus always seem like the software washed out the materials with it's interpretations, but it's a matter of preference.
I just have to know.. Where do you guys get all that great Star Trek sets? I saw a bridge and the Kirk version of the Enterprise that I'd love to get in my runtime.
You mean this one I think its actually a freebie on share if I am not mistaken. I used this one from VP for my enterprise those were 3Delight since they were done in my pre Reality days. Im with Strat love the simplicity of using Reality
VP? Whatever you do.. don't look at this picture too long, you'll see her move.
Greetings,
LuxRender and 3Delight do not share the same algorithm for determining bumps and displacements, no rendering engine does, and I've never had any issue Reality missing displacements, but I have encountered LuxRender (ver 1.2) unable to render some of them and that's not the fault of Reality, the problem was fixed in the release of LuxRender 1.3.1.
Luxus does a different job of interpreting materials but looking at the renders I would not say it does a much better job, Honestly the ones I seen so far from Luxus always seem like the software washed out the materials with it's interpretations, but it's a matter of preference.Sorry, you are right, I should say in my experience Luxus does a better job.
Early on I had some real problems with Reality losing detail on clothing that was added with displacement maps, to the extent that I gave up on that scene. When Luxus came out, I took the exact same scene, rendered it using Luxus and it Just Worked(tm). I tried Reality again, to see if it was something else that had changed, and Reality continued to make the textures flat, with no displacement.
Beyond that, the character's hair (which Reality rendered grey) was the right color, as was the leather armor he was wearing AND his boots.
I was VERY happy about all that...and it's stuck with me as a very positive opinion of Luxus. So it's all in my experience, which is certainly not as extensive as others.
-- Morgan
Never tried it so I can't say. I guess I like sticking with what works...waiting for R3 which will do all of that
I will admit that Lux isn't for everyone though. It does have a steep learning curve compared to 3DL and there's no denying that the majority of renders will take longer than it's equivalent 3Delight version. Reality shortcuts a lot of the material issues, and has a lot of presets available through its ACSEL system. Ultimately you're still at the mercy of time though, and unless you have a good working knowledge of cinematography, it can be hard to figure out how certain lights will work for a given scene, and the materials used.
Of course, realistic renders will always take time no matter what render engine you're using. The more detail added to a scene, the more work your system has to do, and so the more resources it eats up to do it. Lux isn't the fastest renderer out there, but there's no denying that it can get the desired results.