Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Hmmm.. Must disagree respectfully
The SSS light penetration on the right bridge of the nose is wrong
to be frank.
This artist uses Blender to render his DAZ females
a more realist result on the hair IMHO.
I don't like to criticize other artists' work without their asking for it, so I won't comment on the above Blender image. I will say that by "most of us," I meant we hobbyists here in the Daz/Poser camp, not professional 3D artists.
Hair looks better but the skin looks like the texture features are oversized and made too blochy, but not in a blochy pattern you'd expect. Still in either case I haven't approached that level of realism yet. My 'Realistic Renders Really' gallery is still empty.
I cannot paint or draw to save my life, i envy people that can use photoshop to achieve the level of realism i see online, so i use whatever textures, shaders and tweaks i can to achieve what i hope to be a fairly realistic image.
I mainly do portraits because my poor pc couldn't cope with intense scenes although it makes my gallery a little boring lol. I would love to be able to use blender or zbrush or the other programs that make great hair, but my skills with those programs are even less than my painting/drawing ones lol. So i muddle along with the textures and shaders and hairs that i find are the most realistic, and i spend hours tweaking lights, render settings etc til i am pleased with the way something looks and then i hit render.
There is always going to be something a little off with any 3d rendered image unless you are highly skilled in every aspect of image manipulation and the programs used to create such images, I think apart from one or two images on my gallery all of them are 100% Iray with no postwork whatsoever.
It's stunning. Hellboy's renders came to mind, his pores and glistening perspiration on skin is just remarkable.
I'm looking at the skin on this as it is the weak point, although extremely good. Skin is rarely the first thing that kills a realism image for me with Daz, but the rest is so convincing.
Yes, it is always a trade off isn't it... realism vs idealized. You make an excellent point.
Body fat percentages are frequently unrealistic on the female characters. It is quite unusual for an adult woman to have a really round baby face, large breasts, and to be overlly thin almost to the point of anorexia everywhere else. It happens but it is uncommon. Heads are frequently a bit large for the bodies, and posture is usually not realistic. 3d Women have very little arm fat. Arms are really thin on a lot of the characters. Of course the lack of body hair is always an issue.
Eyebrows are usually very stylized on both genders.
On men the hairlines are frequently unrealisitc. Beards end suddenly, hair is shaved or high over the ears not fitting well there. Hairlines are curved like a female characters, or look like they require hours of styling. Hands are missing details, and aren't knobby and grooved or wrinkled.
Thanks. The Condottiero, Vietnam soldier and early man figures use custom shader setups and heavily modified textures, and I like to use Nik Tools in Photoshop for final grading. I also tend to have an internal figure setup using geometry shells for innards that can actually make a difference, using the old M4 and V4 muscle maps baked to G3F and heavily modified and mixed with veins, etc, (the uv set I use is almost exclusively the G3F Base uv just to make life easier) and with their own subsurface scattering and displacement at low subdiv. They often also have the M4 and V4 skeletons inside. The theory is that iray is very limited in its emulation of the physical layering of skin and the human body compared to other renderers, so the simplest trick I could think of was to add my own with layers of geometry.
One thing I'd suggest is to find or make a microskin texture (skin cells) and tile it in your bumpmaps for the skin (if the head is tiled x1, the arms should be x2, the legs x3, and the torso x4, or thereabouts). Also try using the Thin Film under the Top Coat settings at between 80 and 180 for sharp specularity and a bit of oiliness. The more bump in the tiled microskin detail you have, the rougher the Thin Film should turn out, to all intents and purposes.
For lots of very useful advice on skin settings, you should search out ArnoldC's tips in the forums, who has been talking directly to Nvidia, especially in this thread: https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/54239/fiddling-with-iray-skin-settings/p1
Edit: And you might want to set your Tonemapping 'Burn Highlights' to 1 and work your exposure settings from there. I rarely have it set to anything else as it gives a better contrast range without suppressing detail and making the render look washed out.
I must be a blind man to not see what they had in common ---- YOU!
I did not see that the same artist did a bunch of those.
At least I know some parts of me vision work. How did I miss that?!
Thank you for chiming in sharing those tips.
Yet for all of the endless bleeting about the need for more"realism"
people prefer those Idealized Flawless "WestWorld" gynoids
over even attractive depictions with realistic "flaws" such as uneven skin tones particularly on Northern Europeans.
My favorite hold over skin maps from the Vicky4 Era, are the photo based "Vanilla Sky" and "Horizon" textures by Syyd Raven.
I use them all the time on the G2 female with the V4 UV set loaded
They both have Many "flaws" and
"Blotches" because they are sourced from an actual real life human woman.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2TYEp536iB8VW1BelBxQm8wZ0U/view?usp=sharing
To me, context matters.
As the OP said, no wrong answers. We don't all hear the same word when we hear real. Some people aswered based on the notion that real is what we generally see around us from day to day - people who are over or under weight, with noses that are out of joint, ears that seem too big or too small, and all of the other variations that make each of us unique, but generally within similar proportions. Other people answered based on the way lighting is artificially manipulated within a photography studio or in cinema, but still observed in real photographs and real films,
For myself, I don't interpret photography studio lighting as real. To me, they are artificial and staged. Real life has bad lighting most of the time. Photoreal images are not real in the way that a photograph taken on the sidewalk of candid unposed passesrby at a random moment of time would be. So for me, renders that try to achieve that photography studio look are not more real. I am unusual in that way.
Having said that, those photoreal images are AWESOME!!!!!! The artists that produce them have amazing talent and attention to detail. They inspire and engage me as a viewer. Keep up the great work! I love them all. I seek them out as a viewer, but not to the exclusion of images seeking a painterly or toon look. It is just not real, but that is OK. Where does it say images should or should not be trying to mimic staged photography? Great if they do, great if they don't.
Tying this back to the OP. The vintage supermodel and entreprenuer Betty Brosmer was real. However, I go through the vast majority of the days of my life without seeing anyone even remotely like her body shape.
Betty Brosmer
http://www.bettybrosmer.com/
Similarly, the olympic swimmer Michael Phelps is real, but his body proportions (ratio of limbs to torso) are so unusual that most of us go through our entire lives without seeing anyone like him.
Michael Phelps
https://www.scienceabc.com/sports/michael-phelps-height-arms-torso-arm-span-feet-swimming.html
Are pictures of Betty Brosmer and Michael Phelps unrealistic - even though they are actual pictures of real people? Some would say so, especially people concerned about teen girls' concepts of body image and self esteem. And of course, magazine pictures may have more manipulated than just the lighting.
http://mediasmarts.ca/body-image/body-image-advertising-and-magazines
So, to me, the most realistic characters are difficult to assess without seeing their use in context. If asked to pick one as the OP asked, then I think G3M Abel by Artist: Saiyaness is very realistic.
.
Abel for G3M
Ah, that is the sort of subtle detailed textures I look for, but they are never available. Dale is the best lately, but take that with a grain of salt as I haven't all the Genesis 3 texture sets for people and haven't even done details renders of all the texture sets I do have (and my computer would still be rendering if I tried).
I will try Jimbo's suggestions of microtextures and I hope I could leave out the albedo texture completely with a details set of microtextures. Where to buy or find though?
Michael Phelp's body shape ratio is actually quite common of folk that evolved from those that lived in northern climes long preceding recorded history although the overall height isn't so common so chalk that article up to a bit of cherry picking by the article writer and specialist scientists (who actually should know that) that did the research.
However, Betty is quite unusual indeed.
I think Abel looks fairly good but the eyebrows and eyes look feminine to me and quite highly arched for a character who sags with age everywhere else. The eyes look like they have brown shadow on them and liner too.
The point is not whether Michael Phelps' body type existed before, of course it did. He came from somewhere. Humans have not evolved enough during the last 5 or 6 generations of Olympic events for newly evolved body types to be meaningful. Rather, it is the identification and cultivation of people with body types able to compete in events most suited for that body type that has changed the composition of people standing in the winner's circle. The change in the proportions of people observed in the winner's circles of elite sports has been documented and is called the Big Bang of Body Types. People with unequal limb/torso proportions existed before, but they are being identified, trained, and supported in preparing for sports competition more than before. Thus, the likely proportions of people in the winner's circles of various sports would be different if the image was depicting a scene set in the 1950s than if the scene was depicting the 2000s. Yet, people with unequal limb/torso proportions existed in the 1950s, and if they competed in the appropriate sport, would likely have excelled. So it would not be unreal to include such a person in the 1950s scene - or would it? In reality, the sports system was less apt at identifying such athletes in the 1950s.
And that was my point. People interpret the word "real" differently. For me, context matters. A scene with someone with Michael Phelps' proportions could be realistic because such people really exist. Furthermore, such people are more likely to be found in some places than others, so there are some settings in which a person with his proportions are actually more appropriate, even though most people in my grocery store have limbs that are roughly equal to their torsos. His proportions are unusual for humans as a whole (and extreme within that subgroup from which he is drawn).
So, someone is generating an image set in 1956 in which President Eisenhower is hosting 10 olympic gold winners in different sports (generic) on the back lawn of the Whitehouse. The focus is Ike, not the athletes. The question is whether the folks who say they are pursuing realism are going to say it is more realistic if one Daz character with one set of morphs is used over another. So, let us start with limb proportions - is there a set of limb proportions that would be less realistic or more realistic? At the time, limbs of athletes tended to be closer to torso length than observed among elite athletes today. Yet, if a person with a different limb/torso length managed to get in competitions in the 1950s, then that person was likely to excel.
So if say pursuing realism, which is it?
More realistic because it could have been true (differential limb/torso proportions give an advantage and such people existed in the 1950s)?
More realistic because it was more likely to be true (sports training system favored limb/torso equality so a group of athletes in the 1950s tend to have similar limb/torso proportions)?
----------
If someone asks me, which is more realistic, a figure with equal limb/torso length or unequal? Doesn't the answer depend on (1) context and (2) whether reality is defined as what could occur or whether reality depends on what usually occurred?
In any case, celebrate the amazing photo-like renders that artists are producing (and the non-photo ones too).
Dof is huge for me. I pretty much always use it now. Sharp perfectly clean edges just *scream* CGI.
Yeah, Blender is unquestionably better on the hair front right now, she said, subtly posting one of her own renders
but until Iray implements rendering of curves DS is kind of stuck. (And I don't really consider mesh solutions like fibermesh a real alternative, they're much harder to set up a proper material for (in the above render for instance the shader chances the hair color both depending on scalp location and location along the intercept of the strand, which is trivially easy to do with strands, but nigh impossible with meshes), and there's no way I can have a 100k meshed strands without my computer dying a firey death) were it not for the fact that it takes me way, way, longer for me to set up blender renders I would probably be rendering there full time, but as it is, I can get hair 90% of the way there in Iray and everything takes maybe a quarter of the time so...
That being said I don't really find the image you posted particularly more realistic than what you posted it in response to. The hair is better certainly and the eyes about the same (both have excellent eyes), but I don't particularly find the skin more realistic, in particular the only bump in the skin appears to be baked into the diffuse which is IMHO a far more noticeable tell than a bit too much sss on the nose. (also the faked dof is noticably nonsensical, why when you have blender which honesly has one of the best defocus nodes for faking DOF would you not take advantage of it?)
@Serene Night Do you have the 200 morph pack by Dogz? it has some eyebrow positioning morphs I find pretty indispensable I use them pretty much all the time (the same set also has a ear width morph and cranium width morph, which I find likewise useful for realistic characters)
J cade- that Blender hair does look great.
You are ignoring changes in nutrition that have raised the height and length of torsos, arms, and legs since those times and one must say the obsessively professional nature of amateur sports in the USA. The lengths are longer on average now but the ratios are the same for the various body types. And in modern times these 'Olympic' organizations are refusing to train those that don't meet their 'idea body type for sport X', so other types, if they don't get the chance to participate, then how could they be known to be naturally less capable than a body type like Phelps? He won by shear training repetition more than natural advantage physically. That's what they supported him all those years to do so one should be surprised. These organizations that are screening these body types are reducing natural competition to improve like NFL teams screening players for body types rather than playing ability.
I've visited old farm houses from the not to distant past in Austria and even I at 6'0" had to bend over to walk through the doors but the ratios are the same.
Mark Spitz was 6'0" and held that record medal tally how long?
Not ignoring any of that. We are in agreement. Observed body types vary by context including time and place. Pursuing realism depends on context for all the reasons you just gave. On proportions, the observed proportions of elite athletes is not just a matter of everything getting larger in proportion. In fact, elite female gymnasts have gotten shorter on average, not taller. The Big Bang of Body types refers to the diversion in the observed body types of elite athletes compared to the past, including changes in proportions.
Video is worth watching independently of this conversation, but includes nutrition, etc.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger
A LOT has to do with the shader + lighting. N.G.S. 2 is a necessity (and I've heard rumors from the artist himself that NGS3 is coming out! PLEASE, please please?!) and I've had great success with Elieneck's lights.
From the look of some of the promos for NGS 3 over on Dimension-Z's DA site, the skin with this shader does look amazing. From what I have read NGS 3 takes a different approach to NGS 2, in so much as it does not use a single diffuse map.
Perhaps of relevance to some of the points in this thread is that Dimension-Z is also working on a hair shader, which also looks pretty good IMHO. Again samples can be seen on his DA page.
Maybe try these? at texturing.xyz
Agree completelly about Fiber mesh hair.. not a viabel solution in the long run
The G2 female below With Maxons Spline based Dynamic hair.
Thanks
Even if the skins look better on many V4 figures, I can't really use them, because I can't pose them effectively.
For men, George HD is one of my favorite characters, one I come back to again and again, simply because he looks like someone I might see on the street. I think of him as a "character actor" as opposed Brahann and Tempest3D are good sources for women of this type.
And speaking of George and Ivan HD, why aren't ALL characters in HD? It seems so much more effective.
what is this thing called photoreal ?
are you peaple sure you talk about the same thing ?
So in my opinion realism depends on the type of realism you're going after. If you're looking for up-close, high-resolution reality then Daz models, while excellent overall, do not currently have the mouth or eye definition required to pull off 100% realism. Likewise hair goes a long way for creating reality, and again, while there are some really excellent transmapped hair products (namely from OOT) and they continue to get better all the time, but for the little strands and wisps, etc, we still need a true high-end hair and fur product akin to those found on 3dsmax and Maya platforms (I've tried Garabaldi and LAMH on Daz and I applaud their efforts but they are not even in the same universe at products like Shave and Haircut on Maya).
Anyhow, I go for photographic realism (vice photorealism), in which I mean I attempt to mimick the look/feel of a photograph, along with its artifacts, etc. (some examples attached). For these, I've found none of the pre-made characters are really suited, so I adjust the overall figure dimensions and associated maps substantially. Depends on the type and age of the character of course...my attached examples are a younger person, whereas for my older characters I tend use more pronounced normal and bump maps. For hair, I use 2 or more hair products combined to fulfill my hair needs, one of which is always an OOT product since his/hers(?) are by far the more realistic when paired with his Iray Hair shaders product.
Anyhow, I can't wait for Daz 5 and new figures, etc to see what's in store!
Those are quite photo-looking
Thanks...it's probably the result of a 1000 hours tuning the texture on that character to get those results. Labor of love :)