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
A great couple of images illustrating other uses for Carrara's hair.
A great couple of images illustrating other uses for Carrara's hair.
Now you did it! I have to drag this one up from the depths of my hard drive. ;-)
Now you did it! I have to drag this one up from the depths of my hard drive. ;-)
Could have been worse! ;-) :lol:
I am loving the Octane render images shown here.
I better start working on the Octane shader sets. I will create a set and see how the market responds to it.
Best Regards
Now you did it! I have to drag this one up from the depths of my hard drive. ;-)
Hairy arm pitts totally destroy that sexy look. ;)
I have been catching up on JonStark's hair tutorials for getting good animated hair without the jiggles that have plagued people in the past. I have created a new head proxy and styled a hair on that and mostly used Jon's dynamics settings for the animation, then rendered in Octane Render for Carrara. It is no great work of art, but I think it serves its purpose of demonstrating animating hair in Carrara and then rendering in Octane. I am still so excited that this is now possible!
https://youtu.be/8zZaPk0WnFQ
Here are a couple of stills too.
The hair looks excellent Phil!
. . . . . The lady looks like she escaped from West Park though and is off her meds but :snake:
Does that mean we can look forward to animatable hairstyles by Phil in the Daz store?
Does that mean we can look forward to animatable hairstyles by Phil in the Daz store?
Possibly if you think there would be demand for them. Making them on a neutral head proxy also has the advantage that you can (in theory at least) use them with any figure.
Nice work, Phil, but so far, I personally prefer Carrara's native renderer for animated dynamic hair. It seems more precise than Octane.
Nice work, Phil, but so far, I personally prefer Carrara's native renderer for animated dynamic hair. It seems more precise than Octane.
Still a work in progress as regards both the plugin and the best shaders to use - I'm just trying something else on the shaders as I type. There are obvious advantages in having everything in one pass, including correct shadows etc. And the actual geometry is the same for both.
don't get me wrong Phil, your ladies look very attractive in photos and have nice hair, it was the psycho killer expression in the animation that got me worried she was not what she seemed.
No worries!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2gWBn8O6OM
quickie of Stoney's new set
Latest shader tests, this uses some backlighting which the simple glossy material didn't react to as I wanted. I tried adding SSS without much success, then tried a specular material, which looked great, except it was very slow to render and quite noisy. In the end I tried a Mix material of the Glossy and Specular, which is getting there and was faster to render than the pure specular. Still work in progress!
P.S. The light at the back of the head is a sliver of the light I am using for the backlighting, not an intense highlight - just so you know! All images are the unretouched renders.
Looking great Phil, I was finding the specular material works very well, but it did mean a hit on the render time, however the mix between glossy and specular looks like the way to go, it really looks very good and realistic in the pic you showed.
I just had a render in Octane which produced a lot of fireflies - too many to edit out by hand (at least in a reasonable time). It could be because of material settings, but it was a commercial set and there were tons of textures. But then an idea occurred to me - render once to a reasonable level and save it, then render again. Then put the two images as layers in Photoshop and use the "Darker" function to combine them. Unless you are unlucky and the fireflies are in the same place, the fireflies will magically all be removed. Worked for me!
Smart tip! I don't know if I have that function in Gimp or not, but I'll have to go hunting, as that is a great idea for quickly getting good renders without fireflies without waiting 10,000 passes/iterations.
Edit: googled and found out gimp does indeed have a darken combine function, so I'll definitely be giving this a try. nifty trick :)
The function basically compares the two images pixel by pixel and returns the darker of the two. As the two images should essentially be the same, except for the fireflies, it is an easy way to clean up an image with lots of them.
A test of Carrara dynamic hair, created in Carrara and rendered in Octane at just over one minute per frame.
https://youtu.be/0oIxv_fhi7Q
True, there is no jitters and the hair flows naturally. And that is a great step forward. I just wish there was more details to the hair. Maybe a close-up?
Argus - here is a bit of a closer view in a still so you can see more detail in the hair.
'I see some details, but not enough. Maybe you're going to tell me that I'm fussy, Phil, but I'd like to see the hairs separate at the bottom, like they do in real life, and lay themselves delicately on her shoulders. I know you're probably going to tell me that the geometry is the same for any renderer, but I suspect Octane is somewhat responsible for this lack of precision. See my sample rendered with Carrara's native renderer.
'I see some details, but not enough. Maybe you're going to tell me that I'm fussy, Phil, but I'd like to see the hairs separate at the bottom, like they do in real life, and lay themselves delicately on her shoulders. I know you're probably going to tell me that the geometry is the same for any renderer, but I suspect Octane is somewhat responsible for this lack of precision. See my sample rendered with Carrara's native renderer.
Yes, you are fussy, and yes, the geometry is just the same! OK, there may be a small difference in the thickness of the hairs, but I think Sighman has done a good job of matching that between the Carrara renderer and Octane, and you can always adjust it using the thickness parameters in the hair shader.
Here is another still which hopefully addresses some of your concerns, I have made a couple of adjustments to the shader to emphasise the points you raised - hairs separate at bottom - check, hairs laying delicately on her shoulder - check! And keep in mind that this is a still chosen from a complete animation, and with some pretty vigorous head movements in places.
Sighman is working on adding a better default shine to the hair and also allowing for UV mapping so that I would be able to add some colour variation to the hairs, at the moment they are all one colour, and this will be improved on. So it is still partly a work in progress, but I am still so impressed that it works at all, let alone this well! And if it comes to it, you always have the option to render in Carrara and composite the hair in.
that's entirely dependent on the "Simulation" of the hair......It has nothing to do with the renderer used.
That's my ONLY concern at this point. Everything else you address well. If you call this concern about thickness fussy, I think you should be. Your hair is too thick. People in real life don't have hair that thick, it seems to me.
I'm sure you are right, 3dage. But then how do you explain that, in Phil's stills, his hairstyles are completely satisfactory and, when it comes to animation, they are not thin enough.
I take your feedback seriously - I'm having a close look at how the thickness compares between Carrara and Octane and will let you know.
In a hair animation with thousands of strands of hair, (crossing each other) and moving independently, it's possible to perceive the strands as thicker than would be perceived when looking at an individual frame,.. where there is no motion
Stepping frame by frame through an animation sequence shows no change in thickness
While it is difficult to make an exact comparison, I think that maybe Octane Render for Carrara is currently rendering hair slightly thicker than Carrara, but it is not a large difference, maybe of the order of 10%. But having checked settings, I think the hair in the animation was set a little thicker than I normally would. I have started a render of a closer view of the same dance, but with finer hair settings and also more length variation and a small amount of frizz. Let's see how that turns out!