Digital Art Zone

 
   
1 of 7
1
Garabaldi vs Look at My Hair….. Please Clarify
Posted: 19 February 2013 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  715
Joined  2006-05-26

Hello all. So I am just wondering, are these two products the same or do they differ in some way? Is one superior to the other? Do I need both? Any assistance the community can provide is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 Signature 

Please view my Daz3d User Gallery
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#users/465/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2166
Joined  2003-10-09

Different programs
Similar in function
LAMH is already in the marketplace and selling well, Garabaldi is in its beta version.
Both programs are growing very fast

LAMH also has a free player which will allow it to play any presets made for it.

 Signature 

A step away from the ordinary
http://www.daz3d.com/shop/rawart/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1424
Joined  2006-07-04

I’m curious about the differences between the two as well.

From what I’ve seen so far, LAMH works really well for short hair and fur, while Garabaldi looks better for longer head hair, and possibly manes and tails for horses.  But that’s based strictly on the pictures I’ve seen, having not worked with either.

I’m very paranoid about system stress, though, so I generally give any kind of fibermesh hair a wide berth.

 Signature 

DAZ Gallery * * *DA Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 06:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4900
Joined  2008-03-06

I’m'a get both.  Preset functionality is the most important to me, since it’s the most useful as far as making products or freebies dependant on the plugin (think of the great strand hairs that have been made for Poser hair room).


So far I haven’t found LAMH very easy to use, but I also have devoted only an hour or so to the tutorials.

 Signature 

My store at DAZ.

My Deviantart gallery.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
DaWaterRat - 19 February 2013 06:17 PM

I’m very paranoid about system stress, though, so I generally give any kind of fibermesh hair a wide berth.

Then you are in luck…because they are not ‘fibermesh’...they are ‘curve’ based.  In other words, they are procedural…with the option to export to geometry.  So, the ‘system’ toll is much lower than the large number of polys a fibermesh product has.

 Signature 

1432 old posts

My ShareCG gallery.

Just because something costs a lot, doesn’t mean it’s the best…

It just means it’s expensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2825
Joined  2004-04-14

THey both use RiCurves.  There is no mesh

 Signature 

My DAZ3D Store
My Free Stuff
My Art @ DeviantART
Ships of the Line - MEGA THREAD
How to use the Poser Format Exporter - **Updated 2013-02-09**

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1424
Joined  2006-07-04

Well, that makes me feel better about them. smile

 Signature 

DAZ Gallery * * *DA Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 10:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  529
Joined  0

It should be noted that RiCurves can only be rendered in a Renderman engine - eg DS. If you plan on using Lux, Octane, Vue, etc, then you will need to export the curves to an .obj file and you are back to using a mesh.

I don’t know about the LAMH .obj, but in the Garibaldi thread Mec4D noted that the .obj output was similar to Zbrush Fibermesh but lighter in file size.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2013 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1424
Joined  2006-07-04
Gone - 19 February 2013 10:55 PM

It should be noted that RiCurves can only be rendered in a Renderman engine - eg DS. If you plan on using Lux, Octane, Vue, etc, then you will need to export the curves to an .obj file and you are back to using a mesh.

I don’t know about the LAMH .obj, but in the Garibaldi thread Mec4D noted that the .obj output was similar to Zbrush Fibermesh but lighter in file size.

That’s okay.  I like it on this side of the Uncanny valley, and have no plans on trying to figure out how to cross it. smile

 Signature 

DAZ Gallery * * *DA Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 08:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1845
Joined  2006-02-17
Gone - 19 February 2013 10:55 PM

It should be noted that RiCurves can only be rendered in a Renderman engine - eg DS. If you plan on using Lux, Octane, Vue, etc, then you will need to export the curves to an .obj file and you are back to using a mesh.

I don’t know about the LAMH .obj, but in the Garibaldi thread Mec4D noted that the .obj output was similar to Zbrush Fibermesh but lighter in file size.

LAMH has had OBJ output from the very beginning.

Kendall

 Signature 

Any opinions expressed in this post are those of Kendall Sears and may, or may not, be more, or less, valid than any other opinion.

The contents of this post are intended for the DAZ forum only, do not re-post any portion to any other forum without his permission.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2013 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  529
Joined  0
Kendall Sears - 24 February 2013 08:41 PM
Gone - 19 February 2013 10:55 PM

It should be noted that RiCurves can only be rendered in a Renderman engine - eg DS. If you plan on using Lux, Octane, Vue, etc, then you will need to export the curves to an .obj file and you are back to using a mesh.

I don’t know about the LAMH .obj, but in the Garibaldi thread Mec4D noted that the .obj output was similar to Zbrush Fibermesh but lighter in file size.

LAMH has had OBJ output from the very beginning.

Kendall

I guess I wasn’t clear in my statement.

I know that LAMH has had .obj output from the beginning - I just don’t know what type of object structure it creates. Like Fibermesh, Garibaldi outputs cylidrical objects. Are LAMH objects cylidrical or flat planes with texture maps like the more traditional prop hair?

That is what I was saying when I said I didn’t know what type of .obj LAMH creates.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 11:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  803
Joined  2007-01-08

Yes, LAMH can export true geometry (i.e. cylinders, or at least I think they are cylinders) for each single hair, like fibermesh.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4900
Joined  2008-03-06

Okay, I bought Garibaldi today, and now I have both plugins.  Here are my thoughts:


1. Both have good tutorials on Youtube.
2. Garibaldi was much easier to get good “groomed” results with in my total noob, just-started-the-plugin attempts.  See pic.
3. My attempt at a hair that’s pretty impossible to find - the Bela Lugosi widow’s peak short hair - met with no success at all in LAMH but was pretty quick and easy in Garibaldi (though not perfect, it worked without bizarre visual errors).  With LAMH I couldn’t get things to lie down below “fluffy afro” levels.
4. The Garibaldi hair can be saved right back to library, just as if it were a prop or clothing item, and works on reload once it is conformed to Genesis.  I never figured out how to do this with LAMH hair.  I assume the base program is required to use saved hairs for either (although I hear LAMH has a free player coming out that will allow hairs to be used but not edited by those without the plugin).
5.  I haven’t tried to do fur with either yet, so I may be missing an advantage of LAMH there.  It sure has some gorgeous previews with fur out there.
6.  The interfaces are not dissimilar.  Both are dark, use similar buttons and sliders, and pop up when activated from the DS4.5 menus.  Again, I preferred Garibaldi’s grooming tools and length control features, but that’s subjective.  Both are easier to use than Poser’s Hair room in my highly subjective opinion.  Neither was significantly laggy on my 64 bit Win 7 system (16 gb RAM) and their render times were comparable to the geometry strand hairs I own (i.e., still slightly faster than a transmap hair the same size).
7.  They are similar in price right now.


My advice is: If you can only get one, and you want it for groomed human hair, get Garibaldi.  If you want mostly fur, get LAMH.  If you can afford it, and have one but are considering the other, get both.


Again, totally subjective, and I hope others will share their experiences.

Image Attachments
GaribaldiTest.png
 Signature 

My store at DAZ.

My Deviantart gallery.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  622
Joined  2006-09-27

SickleYield, thank you for the comparison.  I was wondering about how they compared and if there would be a problem having both on my system.  Right now I don’t know that I can afford both, but that is what the wishlist is for. ;D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2166
Joined  2003-10-09

You should also keep in mind that LAMH is coming out with a new version very soon that will more advanced tools, that should help with styling.

 Signature 

A step away from the ordinary
http://www.daz3d.com/shop/rawart/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2013 03:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2005-02-25

t totally depends on user!  Just like some say that Poser is easier/more intuitve vs DS…. LOL.

For me, I thought that LAMH was easier and more intuitive, and I have done long hair styles with it too.

Image Attachments
EnchantingLadyMd3.jpg2sm.jpg
Profile
 
 
   
1 of 7
1