G3 v G8 - Apples-to-Apples Render Comparisons | Realism
will.barger.arts
Posts: 60
Our crew is particularly interested in how realistic our renders are, so we focus mainly on that before considering the endless other (often important) factors when deciding to adopt a new character or generation, as we now face with the introduction of Genesis 8 Female.
So I'm hoping that this thread can be a good place for people to post renders of direct comparisons between various features, settings, etc., of Genesis 3 Female v. Genesis 8 Female, along with comments explaing what differences in materials, settings, etc., were used to get the results shown,
Post edited by will.barger.arts on
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
Here's a post to get things started ....
The attached image is a composite of apples-to-apples "head shot" renders of G3F and G8F as they load "out of the box". The Camera settings for both shots are the same, as is the lighting (Dome Only using the "comes with" Environment-Map Image, rotated to 125 for classic short/"butterfly" lighting.)
In Photoshop, the original color images were copied and all color Saturation removed to make "grayscale" images that show the relative lightness/darkness of the skin and renders generally between G3F and G8F. The histograms and other technical information included were screen-captured from Photoshop. The only other work done in Photoshop was the compositing and addition of text.
I found the color shifts and the appearance of "exposure" differences between G3F and G8F interesting and potentially useful in developing our own default/preset settings.
My initial reaction is that G8F may be more "realistic", but G3F may be more "pleasing" ... at leat without further post-processing and/or the use of materials, etc., beyond the defaults provided with the products.
Your thoughts?
RUSSELL
For Will Barger Arts
CLARIFICATION:
The image shown for G3F does have the Iray-option materials and Iray UberShader applied. Apologies for not including those details initially.
If I recall, G3F uses a non-IRAY shader by default...
In that shot, G3F looks more realistic to me, a wider range of colors, and can can almost see the capillaries.
Yes, it's not a valid comparison because by default G3F uses 3DL texture set so even if you render it in iRay it's setup entirely wrong for iRay. On the otherhand, let's not beat around the bush, most people when they render G3F or G8F are expecting a render more like your G3F render based on DAZ's own promos of the G3F character.
Are you sure you did an iRay render with the default HDR and settings and G8F still came out that dark? I am going to have to try for myself. I believe default time in March 10, 2015 near Salt Lake City at 15:00? There is way more sun there then that at that time of year I thought.
I'm pretty sure most (maybe all) G3F Characters use Iray shaders, IIRC (can't check right now, have a render cooking) based on the DAZ Iray Uber Base Skin shader. Most G2F characters come with 3DL shaders, a few here have Iray shaders as well. With G8F, DAZ introduced the "dual lobe" Iray shader, which when set up properly can give a bit more realism in the skin, but will take longer to render (the previous shaders do extremely well though, if the are set "properly").
As for realism, from the OP's posts, it looks like they are looking for skin realism, which can be very subjective, but properly set up, the dual lobe shaders will most likely be able to give better results. The dual lobe shader can be used on previous Genesis characters, but would, right now, require some user intervention to get the best results. With that in mind, and the desire of the OP to get the most realism, my advice would be to focus on improving your shader skills, and possibly texturing (re-texturing) skills, to improve your results to get the desired level of realism. While the PA's are extremely good at creating great products, a top notch shader/texture artist will be able to tune everything to get the desired effect in the given lighting situation.
As others have noted, you would need to compare identical texture and lighting setups on both models to see if there is any real difference betwenn G3F and G8F. My guess is you would see no real difference, unless you were also comparing the dual lobed shader against the original Iray Uber, because the model geometry and UV's are virtually identical. But, as I understand it, there are improvements "under the hood" that improve how well G8F bends, and improves her facial expressions. So, I would guess if you included these elements in your evaluation, G8F would have an advantage over G3F.
Below is what I think is a rather dramatic example of how important putting a properly prepared image in a single channel in the dual lobed shader can make a dramatic difference (still have some work to do, she's a little too orange now). This is a character I'm working on, and the only difference in the setup for the two images is the preparation of the texture map in the translucency color channel (this would have the same effect in the original Iray Uber skin shader as well). I also only used the default HDRI in Iray rotated to 30 degrees. Note that I have only worked on the face so far, so the rest of the textures in the image aren't up to snuff yet.
Oh ..... be shure to zoom to full resolution to see the difference in details
FYI ... The renders shown do NOT use the time/location-based Sun & Sky option within the Environment tab, but instead the Dome Only setting. (See attached screen capture of lighting-related settings.)
Also ... will look forward to any direct-comparison renders you have a chance to make.
This is not a fair comparison as textures are different to start with. Materials from G8f are fully applicable to G3F and vice versa so do it in one way or another and render results. You may also make 'difference' image in Photoshop after that :)
Thanks for the input.
We're more interested in the utility (i.e., what we can learn and use later) of the comparison than how "fair" it is. (Kind of old-school that way, I guess.)
Our initial point with the posted comparison is to see -- as a "first step" of likely many -- how G3F and G8F compare more-or-less "out of the box". Had they come out essentially identical, we'd follow up in one direction. But getting a very noticeable difference, we'll now be going in a different follow-on direction, one aimed at "wringing out" any "unfair" variations in settings, materials, etc., until we get a commercially reasonable "apples to apples" comparison in terms of what our final production renders will/should look like.
Not trying to be "argumentative" in any way ... just trying to make it (more) clear "where we're coming from" and "where we're trying to go".
Thanks again ...
Thanks for all of the detailed input. I'll have to wade through the operational implications and other factors as time permits.
Meanwhile ... NICE work on the portrait-type images! ... especially if you're just getting started with the "polish"!
Your images do illustrate one challenge we face as a result of our emphasis on REALISM, which we seek for fashion-illustration purposes. That is, computer-rendered skin can look a little too "perfect" -- hinting to the viewer that the image is maybe a "fake" computer-generated image and not an "actual photograph" of a real person. To one of your points ... Little lines and freckles do show up quite well in the high-resolution versions of your images, and I suspect they're AWESOME when viewed as original rendered file at full-screen.
This touches on a pet theory of mine, which is that making computer-rendered images look "real" is, in very large part, a matter of adding back a lot of subtle little "flaws" that occur naturally and consistently in "the real world". For skin, that means things like smile lines, crows feet, at least some small pores visible here and there (if you look close), etc. -- little almost-sublimal things that convey "character", if you will.
Such "imperfections" are caught -- sometimes glaringly -- in high-end photography. Sure, a lot of time and effort can go into removing such things from the original image. But that usually involves "muting" them a bit, more than obliterating them.
I'm not suggesting that a model's face needs to have acne scars, deep wrinkles, and a couple of cat-claw marks to "prove it's real". Even a little "her skin looks so good it's just gotta be airbrushed some" reaction is OK for us. But, for us, enough "real world grit" needs to be there -- ideally in the original render itself, but if not, added in post-processing.
Another "challenge" is figuring out how to get all of that real-life "character' to come across on an end-user's device -- ranging from large/high-definition desktop monitors to smartphone screens -- and AFTER our "finely crafted" images are uploaded and "processed" by the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. (Not sure there's really any "universal solution" to that one, but we're hacking our way to a "commercially reasonable compromise" as fast as we can ... :-)
You see ... While we'll sometimes be doing some "flashy"/creative stuff, our primary focus is on providing promotional and other images that a Customer -- when opening a garment shipped to them that they saw in our images online -- thinks "that's exactly what I thought it would look like when I ordered it". So they need to believe that they're looking at a "photo" of the "real thing" when browsing an online clothing catalog, etc. (We're not trying to "fool" anybody. That's why we need to make the images "that good".)
Anyway ... hope this background info helps explain "where we're coming from" ... and why we might focus on various aspects and downplay others, etc.
Thanks again ...
In that case, you really should be looking into Skin Builder 3. It will help you put in some of those little imperfections. It works with Genesis 3 Female, but the materials/presets you create can be used on both G3F and G8F. It can't be used as a merchant resource for G8F, but it doesn't sound like you need one. Here's an image I did last May, using SB3 to modify the skin. If you look at the full size image, you can even see the pores on her face:
I added the mole, too. Once you understand how SB3 works, you can make your own "templates" for just about any imperfection you want.
In your quest for "realism" the base G3F and base G8F materials are not what should be compared. The best way I can desribe them is that they are the equivilent of a free demo version.
To make an educated decision on what model to use, you neeed to look at the quality of the paid content.
One more thing to keep in mind too, is that in the quest for realism you need faces to have varying shapes and imperfections that are "real", not just painted on with a texture.
First render : G3F based Bethany 7 materials and shape
Second render : G3F based Kalea 7 materials and shape
Third render : G3F with custom face morph and I don't remember which material set was used
Fourth render : G3F with custom face morph including imperfect teeth and MeiLin 7 materials
Oh, sorry.
Good to know. Thanks.
We were looking pretty hard at buying Skin Builder 3 (touted specifically for G3F) when the G8F platform came out. Since you think it's a stong tool based on your own actual experience, we'll lean toward "diving in" soon. We don't mind paying for good products (especially when returnable if a "dud" or somehow incompatible with us, like you can do with the Daz3D store), but the "overhead" time and costs of learning and integrating new stuff is something we tend to avoid unless we're pretty confident about its succes and ultimate commercial value to us.
From what I understand -- hopefully correctly? -- is that G3F and G8F use the same UV Maps, so we've been assuming that any skin(s) made with Sking Builder 3 should/would work readily for G8F characters as well. Has anybody actually created skins with Skin Builder 3 and then TESTED them on G8F? If so, please share results and thoughts!
We're not exactly "Product Developers" for marketplaces like Daz3D (at leats not yet), but our business activities do require sharing certain assets with apparel-production partners, etc. So we're always interested in Merchant Resource tools (which Skin Builder 3 apparently is) to help avoid copyright issues, as well as providing more direct control. (But when we find something "great" in a pre-made product, we also like to buy rather than make, since that can save great-heaping-bunches of time.)
You're right about that, of course.
One thing we're already building is a "stable" of different bodies and heads/faces that we can "mix and match" to create a wide array of virtual "fashion models" who can be posed and placed in scenes with great flexibility "on the fly". (However, keeping all of them on one or a very few highly compatible "platforms" like Genesis 3 or 8 or ... is key, since we have to develop a more-or-less "conforming" model of each garment and size of garment.) Getting well-sculpted (and posable and morphable) faces and bodies -- that look "real" -- is very important to us.
But one thing we've learned while testing all of these "shapes" is that -- for our purpsoes -- it doesn't ultimately matter much how well "sculpted" a posed figure is IF the skin looks "fake" or "cheesy". You still get an unsatisfactory/unusable result. Hence the initial (perhaps over-)focus here on skin (for now).
Thank much fo the helpful thoughts and examples.
I have used SB3 modified skins on G8F. You have to use G3F to create them, but once you have the presets, they can be applied to G8F. The eyelashes are separate on G8F, but if you select both the figure and the eyelashes and then apply the preset, you can apply everything at one go. It's my understanding Zev0 is planning on a Skin Builder 4 for G8F, also a merchant resource. I just have no idea where it is in his workflow. (But it will be an instant buy for me. Zev0 makes some of the most outstanding products.)
Zev0 had a render competition with the requirement of using at least three features from Skin Builder 3 to qualify. I highly recommend you skim through that and see what the artists came up with. There are some really great images there, with outstanding skin: Skin Builder 3 render competition (closed)
I don't know if it's really relevant to compare skins, since G3F and G8F can share skin settins, and you more than likely have to build your own skin settings for your lighting anyway. Also comparing base characters is kinda pointless, since both need extra help for realistic renders. Although I think if you are making the clothes your models will be wearing, maybe that new G8F pose helps your workflow.
I suppose G8F will be better in the long run, with it's subtle muscle movements, but currently it's still much behind G3F on posing department. There's couple of "must have" products from Zev0, that have not been released for new genesis figures yet. Bend Control improves lots of problem areas, and especially shin and elbow bending, where G8F got zero improvements. Breast Control and Glute Control also help you with gravity etc. effects. Depending how you pose your characters, you also might need something for impact effects. I think there's several to choose from. For V7 based characters there's also ultimate natural bends product, and those morphs improve posing nicely too. So IMO currently you get more realistic looking poses from G3F, but more than likely all those products will be updated for G8F at some point. This same goes for expression morphs etc. so I believe that eventually G8F will have everything that G3F has now, and probably more. Those upgraded products probably will be little better, but G3F products are already here, and you get those for nice discounts. So the question really is, how much you are willing to pay, and how long you can wait.
I agree with some of the comments the usefulness of comparing skin textures. Since G3&8 can share them back and fourth with relative ease I find it a less useful comparison.
And since I do love a good comparison with isolated variables here is a nice comparison of G3 and G8 expressions with all other element controlled, same texture, nigh identical morphs (some minor differences stemming from the transfer, same body pose, only difference is the expression, both use one of the smiles from the expression pack with no tweaking. G3 uses "Smile" dialed in 83.2%. G8 uses "Smile open full face HD" @ 75%.
Both could probably be improved with some manual tweaking. But man is G8 way, way, way nicer by default. (its not even just the hd, its also the eyes squinting, the bottom lip not doing... whatever the G3's bottom lip is doing, and yes those are things one fould fix by fiddling and tweaking, but thats a lot of extra time to spend every time you want a vaguely human smile)
With the notable exception of the Bald girl images posted by
Jcade, all of the renders inthe thread fail miserably in the context
of "realism" because of the hair and obvious lack of corneal bulge
in the eye geometry.
As you have pointed out, corneal bulge is another important factor in getting more realistic renders (as is some form of dynamic/strand based hair). I may have dialed the corneal bulge in for my shader examples, but don't remember, and probably didn't since the character is in development, and as I work with her, I may make some more modifications to the sculpt (her head is 100% original sculpt, and her body is a combination of shape shift and my own sculpting). I just happened to have the two test renders sitting in open render windows when I noticed this thread, so I thought they might be instructive, even though the rest of the surfaces were unmodified. Actually, the other surfaces were from a a skin/shaders from a character set I was using just to see how the morphs looked with textures applied. I think this point can be rather demonstrative as well since you can easily see the difference in skin/surface details between my work, and the "store bought" skin/shaders (not trying to degrade anyone else's work, as this set that rest of the skin surfaces are from is really quite beautiful, they just don't have the fine details I'm working to create).
In all fairness, and to clarify the intent of my post and examples, I wasn't trying to show photo realism, as that is something I rarely (never?) try to achieve. I prefer "realistic 3d", where everything is clearly 3d, but also clearly not a photo of a real person. My examples were to show the importance of understanding texturing and shader manipulation if you are chasing any sort of 3d realism. My images are clearly a work in progress, and in no way a finished product (or at least I hope it is clear it is a WIP). The face textures still have a long way to go before I'm finished. The bump/normal map is about 80% done, the lips being the most obvious thing that needs attention. I also have a bit of refinement and some additions to make to the texture map (i.e. some freckles on the forehead, and removing some more shadows burned into the texture map like can be see below the lower lip), as well as the specular map. Even when finished though, I wouldn't call it a true photo real texture map, because it will be missing many of the details I'll mention next, details that change with expression and pose.
As jcade's image clearly demonstrates, to get a true photo real model/image, you need to have access to the HD creation tools for DS, to enable creation of the fine wrinkles and folds of the skin as poses and morphs are applied. True, this can be created for static images either in post by painting in the details, or by using displacement maps (or sculting), but to get this type of dynamic detail you need to be able to create a set of detailed MCM and JCM wrinkle/fold morphs that are automatically applied as the figures joints are moved, or facial morphs are applied (MCM - Morph Controlled Morph, JCM = Joint Controlled Morph), Only then will you be able to bridge the chasm of uncanny valley into something that looks photo realistic. If the OP is really looking for true photo realism, then it might be less expensive to hire models to show off their garments. My guess is that they are looking more for a realistic 3D look (the type that leaves the image on the far side, and not directly in uncanny valley), so that the potential customer can pick a similar body/complexion/facial type to place a garment on, to see what they might look like. If I am wrong, and they desire true photo realism, then IMHO they will need to invest in either learning all of the skills I have mentioned in my posts (and what others have noted as well), or hiring someone (or 2-3 people??) with the needed skills to accomplish the task. DS, and the models/characters/assets being provided are exceptionally good (especially for the price), and getting better all of the time. But IMHO the holy grail of push button photo realism hasn't been found yet. For that, a fair amount of user "intervention" and knowledge of how to improve what DAZ and the PA's are providing us is required. Jcade is one of those users that has worked to gain this knowledge, and the continually perfects her skills to reach "photo realism", I would guess that she seldom (if ever???) uses any of the figures she purchases in their "default" state, and always uses her skills and knowledge to improve upon the base she starts with.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth, which when balanced against inflation, is probably actually worth about 0.000002 cents.
The hair, maybe... but I used cornea bulge. I always do...
I forgot to mention in my last post that wolf's open dissing of others work is a bit .... umm ... well lets just say I would never do it and leave it at that.
I'm guessing that your image, and others in this thread are quite possibly the exact type of "photo realism" the OP is looking for. Regardless, great render, as are the others that have been posted. I think I'm probably done here now, as I really don't want to get into yet another discussion of photo realism.
Good luck to the OP on your project.
Thanks fo all Commenters so far. Good stuff we can all plow through in some detail as time allows.
Picking up on one good, detail-oriente point mentioned, but hopefully without getting too far "into the weeds" ...
CORNEAL BULGE:
I know what Corneal Bulge is, but I've never really "nailed down" exactly how much the extent of it in a given person's eyes affects a viewer's "take-away impression" of the face (presumably quite subliminally -- at least for most people, but maybe not-so-subliminally for portrait photographers or painters, or CG artists :-) .
To be honest, it's not one of the first factors I'd think of. But from the multiple and reinforcing Comments made previously, I'm beginning to think that Corneal Bulge could have a much greater effect (even if unconsciously) than many other "more obvious" factors.
Some people have a "lot" of it. Some people have only a "little" of it. But I suppose that everybody has some of it. So, yes, it probably should be "accommodated" in every case, by one way or another, if you're seeking a significant level of (whatever flavor of) "realism". Here's why ,,,
It seems to me that the factors affecting how important Corneal Bulge is likely to be in any particular render include.
If you're creating a face for a "generic" person, it's probably more of a question as to what you subjectively think is "good looking" (or weird, if that's what you're after).
If Animation is involved, it seems impractical to adjust such "fine details" more than once per scene.
OPERATIONALLY, it seems like you'd want to set the "right" (realistic) Corneal Bulge for a given photomodel and then -- absent some special-case considerations -- just "go with it" regardless of the other factors cited above. Perhaps one potential challenge -- beyond a potentially tiring set of intial test-renders to find the "right" settings -- might be figuring out whether it is necessary to "over-do" the bulge for close-up purposes (and, if so, by how much) so that the bulge "shows up" (even if subliminally) in any further-away shots that tend to be typical/most-common for a given artist's body of work? (This potential tactic seems something akin to stage actors who apply face makeup that seems very bold/harsh standing next to them backstage, but has to be that way so that the actor "has a face at all" to the folks in the balcony.)
What do ya'll think?
Am I thinking about this the right way?
RUSSELL
For WIll Barger Arts
I agree that some people seem to have a hard time finding and respecting the line between constructive criticism and merely "finding fault".
I've never had much use for the latter, either. And as i get older, I find have less tolerance for it, too. :-)
I did not use any HD creation tools here, these are the smiles from daz's expression packs. (Honestly, I'm not nearly that good at sculpting yet.) If theres one advantage G8 has on G3 its definitely the expressions daz has made for her this go round, on the other hand I do like G3's eye setup better
Yeah I very rarely use anything, particularly characters in their default state. Although I think the order of operations is a bit different, personally I think a lot of my knowlege comes from the fact that I never left things at default even when I didn't know what I was doing. I always fiddled with everything.
Opps, sorry, I should know better than to respond on a small tablet while in a hurry
. I should have eluded to the fact that I thought your image was using the new HD expression morphs DAZ made for Genesis 8.
I've always had a compulsion to fiddle with everything too, but obviously, you excel at it much better than I!
Wow. I think you may be over-thinking it! Back when Iray was in Beta and only available with the 4.8 Beta, someone noticed setting the Eyes Cornea Bulge morph to 100% let the cornea better reflect light falling on the eye. More recently, someone even said they always dial it to 150%, (after removing/changing limits in the morph setting—was that you, J Cade?) The thing is, without the eyes reflecting light in some manner, they just aren't going to look real. It can be a spot of light, or something in the scene. But no reflection equals dull and lifeless...
May well be. I tend to do that.
But we're trying very hard to set up reliaby repeatable systems and procedures that can be used by a lot of different people at different times for different purposes -- which is a pretty tall order for an essentially creative end product. Three decades of consulting work in global manufacturing and supply-chain consulting taught me a lot of things. One of those things is that -- before you "bake in" a standard that's going to be used over-and-over "everywhere", you'd darn well better be sure you've thought through the "what happens on an odd-numbered Thursday when the moon is full" scenarios (or at least the factors that can create such) ... and you'd better do that BEFORE you put it "in production" ... if only to make clear the known-possible circumstances under which "the standard" should NOT be followed.
But thanks for "calling BS" when you thought you might smell it. A fellow needs that every now and then ... :-)
Very much agreed that "no reflections in the eyes" very often means a dull, lifeless, unrealistic look. And having a reflection with a good "catchlight" can really make an image "snap".
But after some Cornea Bulge testing (see results in attached images), I'm leaning toward a conclusion that it's the presence of good/realistic reflections themselves that make the eyes seem more "real", and that a bulge in the cornea is only one (very good to know) factor in achieving those reflections ... others being what else is in the scene to be reflected, the lighting (of course), etc.
All told, however, we'll likely be adding a fairly strong level of "Cornea Bulge" to essentially all of the "stock" photomodel characters we set up. It does clearly change (and seems to enhance) the reflections in the eyes. I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves how much bulge is the "right" amount for their own work.
Other eye-related "standard" adjustments we're looking at ... pun intended ... are closing the pupils more than most out-of-the-box character settings, and maybe the size of the iris, and setting a "look at" point (probably using a null object) that brings the focal point of the eyes to something closer than the "look straight ahead at the horizon" setting that seems to be the default for most all characters. (My conclusion is that this "eyes front" default plays a big role in what I call the "runway zombie look".)
In the attached images, any change in pupil dilation and iris size are both pretty much obscured by the reflections in this particular shot, regardless of Cornia Bulge settings.
But particularly for pupil dilation ... most of our fashion-illustration work involves an outdoor setting or fairly "high key" studio-set "environments" -- which means "bright light" in most cases. Seems like we humans at least subliminally expect "real" eyes in such light to have smaller pupils than what are normally set "out of the box" with Genesis-platform characters.
I with you on the pupils! One of the first things I adjust. The other, new to G3, is the cross-eyed adjustment. If I focus on something a foot from my face, my eyes don't go cross-eyed. But if you "point" the figure's eyes to an object that close, that's exactly what they do! Most of the time, I like to have the figure looking directly into the camera. Sometimes I'll have them looking elsewhere. But I always make sure they don't look like they're trying to see the tip of their nose! lol
I'm another very strong advocate for the Skin Builder. I can't say enough about what a must have tool I feel this is for skins.
I have decided to stick with G3F because the wait for Skin Builder did me in on waiting for items for the current character to hit the shelf. From now on I will only play with characters that have full closets so speak. Everyone will work on Genesis 8 for the next two years and then she'll be shutdown. At that time I will look at her closet, all the content created for her and add up exactly what I wish to spend to make her flexible for my needs. Then and only then will I be able to decide if it is that important to upgrade.