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
Ah. Sorry. Let me find it.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=43&s=32c0c16e9f8badf614272f45507740a4&t=1192739&page=1
Go the the third page onwards to see the full face.
And here's a beauty shot of Lana with the updated teeth and eye surface tweaks. :D
Thank you for the link!
Lana looks great =)
It's like negative shadow intensity on lights...it can produce some very interesting effects.
I think this was meant for the 'other' thread? :)
It was...but how did it get here?
I didn't even have this thread open when I typed it in...I don't think...
GC makes a big difference, I think is the take away here. This render has everything gamma-corrected and I don't think any other changes were made. The skin is Bree, which I have tried numerous times to replace for this character, but it just looks so damn real. What do you guys think?
Lighting looks very flat.
This thread has been a great read, very informative. For someone (like me) who wasn't very familiar with the general notions of linear workflow and gamma correction, it felt like jumping into the middle of a conversation.
Googling a bit, I found a couple of resources that were really useful in setting the background for the rest of the discussion in this thread:
A brief write up about gamma correction
http://www.vfxwizard.com/tutorials/gamma-correction-for-linear-workflow.html
Two videos providing a simple introduction to/explanation of linear workflow and gamma correction:
http://youtu.be/wEbH62a1YqA
http://youtu.be/9jM44iCCkEw
I hope other gamma correction neophytes might find these useful
nice colors a master piece.
I lost track of this when forum got updated, still my perspective remains the same, thanks for take in count my advice (like nobody did), you're the only one to be great!
when people still discovering the inner secrets of skin settings I was doing renders like today but... in 2010.
anyway, cheers!
Great article! I've just discoved the bookmark feature on Daz forums. I believe I'll be coming back to this post a lot in the future.
Sorry for silly questiion. Does this apply to IRAY or only 3Ddelight?
EDIT: Ooops! SickleYield answered my question. Many thanks.
OMG!!! Is it real or is it Memorex???? I have never produced renders like these. Even with the lighting unbalanced, to the untrained eye, it looks like a studio production. Thank you so much. I've hunted for days for a tutorial addressing linier workflow at a level understood by the less experienced. This is, by far, the best tutorial I've found.
Thank you again.
Bruce
I'm so happy to hear that! Thank you. Yep, like I said before, Gamma Correction is very hard to grasp, let alone explain.
Latest setup. Linear workflow, approximated physical falloff on the lights, approximated GGX for the skin (narrow specular, wide specular and reflection).
Parris said: "If you want, I can share one of my images here and I can break it down - share all the steps and the reasons for my approach. How about that? I might not be able to do it right away though. I'm working on my taxes right now."
I've read this article waiting in anticipation for Parris' breakdown. Thanks all for your contributions however it eventually (very rapidly) went over my head. I speed read to the end waiting in anticipation for the breakdown. Parris convinced me, apart from others, that this is the way to go; through his amazing renders....but I need monkey see monkey do style. Please post a break down as suggested Parris. The evidence is in the pudding. Your work is really amazing and your contribution and everybody else's, is really appreciated.
Denavin, I'm so sorry you were waiting for help that never came. This topic is as hard to explain as it is to understand, and it sparks a lot of commentary, some of it delving into whole philosophies. Thus it also makes it a challenge to read through this whole thread and follow the context. In the quote you mention I was responding specifically to a request from Scottydog 2. He wanted the kind of monkey see, monkey do style help that you are wanting, but then he decided to work in Iray, so I suggested he start a thread with what he wanted help with and then we would do the breakdown from there together. But time passed and I didn't here from him, so I assume he moved on. I may not have read every post in here, but I don't think anyone else has chimed in with an interest before you. But, I'll try to make you the same offer now.
Help me to know where you are at with understanding Daz Studio, what you're having trouble with Gamma Correction wise, and maybe what type of image you're interested in making or improving. Use images to show me if words are inadequate. Then I'll try to do a step by step that will help, but we'll also be sharing the process with everyone. But this thread is too long already. So I'd like you to discuss and form a plan with me here first, and then I'll create a thread called "A Gamma Correction Render, step by step" or something and post the link here. If we do this, please be patient. I've got a lot going on right now, but I will try not to leave you hanging.
Would Love a Step by Step Tutorial as well Parris, I just want my skin to look better
Have you looked at the 4th post? It is a step by step.
This seems working only in 3Delight not in Iray as SickleYield said..
I mean, I noticed no differences before <-> after !
Sadly :/
With Iray, gamma correction is on by default. It's one of several key components that make Iray (or any render engine) produce more realistic rendering. Other key factors are global illumination (good example being Image Based Light), and physically based (or "physically plausible") surface shaders, to mention a few. All of which, by the way, are supported in 3delight, but not yet fully with Daz Studio's implementation of it.
Great tips in here.
One annoying thing to note... For "Gamma correction" in the image-editor settings... It modifies EVERY object that uses that image. Including if the material is on another model. (Great if you find a setting that works all-over, but if you want to do just the skin, or just the nails, or adjust just the IRIS, you will find that it modifies every surface that uses the TORSO, or ARMS, or LEGS, or EYE or whatever respected images are shared among surfaces. Not just the individual surface you think you are working on. However, the other setting, if it shows-up, below GAMMA adjusting, is done per-instance, oddly. It will only change that one specific material image, on that individual area you are modifying.)
It also does not COPY and PASTE, those material settings, when you try to duplicate those settings onto another similar model.
Post processing is much faster and easier to control. Ultimately, it still depends on having a realistic looking photo-skin, to get realism added. Adding GAMMA to a plastic and flat color texture will not make it look any more real. More artistic, sure... But not more real.
The image gamma setting is to tell the gamma correction code how to linearise the image, it should not vary for different parts of the image. Being able to adjust the tone of a map would perhaps be useful on occasion, but might be better handled with soemthing like LIE or shader settings.
The example I will use is the following...
The EYE image... Which is used for the (Irises, Cornea, Pupils, Sclera)
If you adjust the GAMMA, for just the IRISES, it adjusts the image itself, which applies to the (Irises, Cornea, Pupils and Sclera)
The FACE image... Which is used for the (Ears, Face, Eye Socket, Lips)
If you just want to adjust the GAMMA on the actual FACE or the EARS... it alters the (Ear, Face, Eye Socket and Lips)
You can't just adjust the IRISES, or the FACE, without also altering all the other things. Which also includes any shaders that the images are also used in. (Eg, if the same image is used to manage diffuse, or bump, or some other oddball shader-element... That image will have the GAMMA adjusted there too, altering the shader output.)
However, if you adjust the "Instance color", "Scale", that is only done on that specific image, in that specific shader-element, on that specific object-surface. Yet, that option isn't there in some images, for whatever reason.
Shaders don't handle GAMMA, by the sliders. Unless you want to start customizing the actual shader-blocks themselves, which is a nightmare to work with. That is why I said post-processing is faster and better. You have full control over the whole scene, instead of wasting time playing around with individual images in the model, where you can't control the GAMMA, per surface, as it is just applied to every surface that uses that image. (Unless you duplicate the image, and make it unique per surface, per shader-area, and per object... But then, you might as well just adjust the images actual GAMMA, in a normal paint program. But that will severely alter the way it looks in various lights. It will only ever look artisticly "good", in one lighting setup.)
Reality is dull... Art is a modification of reality, in an attempt to make it look (subjectively) more pleasing.
Control, when it is real, is constrained to specific elements of desire, which the GAMMA settings are not...
What you can do is use LIE to rename the image for a certain mat zone, then DS will automatically be creating a new PNG on scene load, and this can have a different gamma value from the original map.
As I said, the purpose of the gamma setting is to tell the renderer how to linerarise it (if it isn't already linear, gamma = 1) - it isn't there for selective adjustments to certain surfaces. Yours is a feature request for a new function - though as noted there are ways to achieve the desired effect.
I wish I knew about all this when I did 3Delight. Wow. What a difference.
approaching realsim is an dead end with Iray
bring on V-RAY