Loading...
> >

Which DAZ Genesis 8 M/F characters are the most realistic/beautiful?

12467

Comments

  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896
    Rashad Carter said:

    Snow,

    The more options the better in most cases and pretty much always when it comes to artwork. I don't think there is any disagreement from anyone that details are important. My only point of interest is in which details we decide to emphasize, and why we tend to focus more on some things than other things.

    This is my attempt to explain in more detail why I feel most of our Daz3d renders don't look like true photos even though we always know real humans even from bad photos captured in real life. So what's going on? Part of this goes to the whole discussion of what's the point of the realism in the first place?

    1. As I stated in my above post, there is a difference between skin and a Xerox copy of a skin. A good example is the first image I've included. It features a young female similar to the Danae character. Clearly this is an UNFAIR comparison, but we are talking stark realism here. So many things are done well with the Danae character. I think it looks close enough to the natural thing that my imagination can fill in most of the rest of the blanks in most cases. I feel the artist did an excellent job of giving us the amount of detail we need while not overdoing it. Still, if you were to place the render next to a real photo of a similar looking person our unconscious minds know right away that one is a render. What's missing aside from the real world lighting?

    You make excellent point but now imagine characters like the Metropolis collection with Genesis 8 added matriculation points, advanced geometry and all the advancements in sub skin layers and Iray.. OMG.. How cool is that going to be?  Every render we make will look like a person regardless of the lighting..

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    edited January 2018
    Rashad Carter said:

    3. Here are even more images. Again I argue that color variations and other surface features we think are so important are highly secondary to a truly convincing normal/bump/displacement and proper specular settings. Let me know if you agree.

    4. Here are some people with a little more age. Do we need to bake little dots into the texture itself to represent the pores? Etch litereral lines into the texture for wrinkles, or should we use a flat albedo texture and use displacement or normals or bump to get us there? I think we need a combo as you've said. Some degree of baking but not too much, as I'm going to give the rest of the job over to my surfacing details. I feel that only the most EXTREME wrinkles and pores need to be baked into the texture. Otherwise, I think it almost always better to use surfacing tech.

    So as you observe here are my questions

    1. Do you think that undereye wrinkles on most of these people can look convincing as mere lines on a texture file, or do they require some amount of 3d surface detailing?

    2. When you look at the lips, do you think there are actual dark etchings on the lips, or are all those shaded regions merely shadows coming from surface disruptions of some sort? Do you think the lips would look as real if the texture maker sells it to me with those lovely shadows baked into it?

    3. Do you observe huge variations in the skin tone? And if so, do you think that these color shifts are more important that the surface specular behavior?

    4. Look at the amount of specular and the width of that specular. Have you EVER seen a render at Daz3d that demonstrates bumpiness and specular width like this? Isnt it interesting how it never looks like plastic?

    True, the only way to get real specular variation like that is to actually affect the mesh.  But then you are talking about a figure with far more polygons than a base DAZ mesh.  Now you are venturing into the deep end of the pool.  You are talking about 3D scans and polarized textures.  Most importantly, you are talking about more knowledge by the artist about how human skin works with its many layers and opacities.  What you are not talking about is a simple photorealistic digital human with an EZ button for $19.95!  The work required to use human figures of that quality far exceed the budget, computer specs, and skill level of the hobbyists who use Daz Studio.  How would they be modeled?  In the neutral pose?  What would happen when a user applies one of those god-awful Daz expression morphs to their digital double?  Why not just put your brand new Ferrari into the hands of a teenager?

    These days we have some incredible tools and technology that make it seem on the surface that anyone can instantly create anything.  No need for skill or training, just push the EZ technology button.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  Artistry can't be democratized and passed out like McDonald's hamburgers.  You can't push a button and say BAM! I made a human.   Daz Studio offers some incredible technology for amateurs to play with, so have fun and enjoy.  But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it can create instant art.  It can't.  If you want real art, you will have to work for it.  Here are some good places to start:  https://www.triplegangers.com/    https://www.cgcircuit.com/course/mari-projection-painting  https://texturing.xyz/collections/human   

    Post edited by drzap on
  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896
    drzap said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    3. Here are even more images. Again I argue that color variations and other surface features we think are so important are highly secondary to a truly convincing normal/bump/displacement and proper specular settings. Let me know if you agree.

    4. Here are some people with a little more age. Do we need to bake little dots into the texture itself to represent the pores? Etch litereral lines into the texture for wrinkles, or should we use a flat albedo texture and use displacement or normals or bump to get us there? I think we need a combo as you've said. Some degree of baking but not too much, as I'm going to give the rest of the job over to my surfacing details. I feel that only the most EXTREME wrinkles and pores need to be baked into the texture. Otherwise, I think it almost always better to use surfacing tech.

    So as you observe here are my questions

    1. Do you think that undereye wrinkles on most of these people can look convincing as mere lines on a texture file, or do they require some amount of 3d surface detailing?

    2. When you look at the lips, do you think there are actual dark etchings on the lips, or are all those shaded regions merely shadows coming from surface disruptions of some sort? Do you think the lips would look as real if the texture maker sells it to me with those lovely shadows baked into it?

    3. Do you observe huge variations in the skin tone? And if so, do you think that these color shifts are more important that the surface specular behavior?

    4. Look at the amount of specular and the width of that specular. Have you EVER seen a render at Daz3d that demonstrates bumpiness and specular width like this? Isnt it interesting how it never looks like plastic?

    True, the only way to get real specular variation like that is to actually affect the mesh.  But then you are talking about a figure with far more polygons than a base DAZ mesh.  Now you are venturing into the deep end of the pool.  You are talking about 3D scans and polarized textures.  Most importantly, you are talking about more knowledge by the artist about how human skin works with its many layers and opacities.  What you are not talking about is a simple photorealistic digital human with an EZ button for $19.95!  The work required to use human figures of that quality far exceed the budget, computer specs, and skill level of the hobbyists who use Daz Studio.  How would they be modeled?  In the neutral pose?  What would happen when a user applies one of those god-awful Daz expression morphs to their digital double?  Why not just put your brand new Ferrari into the hands of a teenager?

    These days we have some incredible tools and technology that make it seem on the surface that anyone can instantly create anything.  No need for skill or training, just push the EZ technology button.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  Artistry can't be democratized and passed out like McDonald's hamburgers.  You can't push a button and say BAM! I made a human.   Daz Studio offers some incredible technology for amateurs to play with, so have fun and enjoy.  But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it can create instant art.  It can't.  If you want real art, you will have to work for it.  Here are some good places to start:  https://www.triplegangers.com/    https://www.cgcircuit.com/course/mari-projection-painting  https://texturing.xyz/collections/human   

    I'd commit to pay a lot more for the right character....I think if you kept the price under $100 (USD) so the amatuer market such as myself don't get priced out like they do with the high end stes that shall be the nameless resources of my Hollywierd conterparts... You should do very well in the long run..  Just thinking out loud.  I could see paying that for a extremely well done character..

    We aren't looking for easy... Even the poor need their Picasso tools to work with..  Ours happen to be the divine figure of our fellow humans.. Make it beautiful. 

    Take care and be blessed.. wonderful learning from you.

  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    edited January 2018
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    agent unawares said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    e of a car. But how about the lumpy softness of a human face? Much more difficult to pull off.

    YES!

    Hair, too. Painted on eyebrows and flat transmapped hair are huge giveaways that a render is not a photo.

    Even that is highly debateable... My favorite all time product creator and a favorite of my other people I know is Danae's Metropolitian collection...

    https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/the-metropolitan-collection---london-v4-2/97977/

    Arguably the most realistic character in V4 history and she won a couple of awards before the economy crashed in Greece and she stopped making characters... but those character all had 'baked on' hair and no hair options and I found both of them to be useful at different times.  It's a shame that in 10 years .. few people have followed such a great example... and if she made this AMAZING CHARACTER as a v4.. just imagine what we can do with Genesis 8.. the potential is limitless.

    That is an amazing skin indeed, but a ton of lighting is baked in. Light it in a way that doesn't correspond to the baked in light and it falls apart.

    And it was still the most realistic looking character in my arsonal because I make several characters in a scene and not have all my resouces consumed by trying to mimic micro-details.. It seems everything must find a balance... :)  Both are valid techniques to use.

    Yup, it looks great. I know the skin well. But it's a huge cheat, let's not kid ourselves. That highlight on the nose is completely baked in. Light it at an angle and things will start to look pretty bad pretty quickly. This is literally the easiest way to make a skin. Leave all the highlights in as it was in the photo. Often this looks outright horrible, like the usual Facegen stuff, so kudos of course to Danae for tuning it so well that it does look great. But with this method you get around a lot of the actual challenges like proper skin shading, so taking this as a benchmark skin is a bit problematic.

    This is true.  Danae's skins can be likened more to a beautiful painting than a proper skin texture for a model.  The perfect diffuse texture (and everything starts with the diffuse) should look unsaturated and without contrast.  When viewed by itself, it should look washed out and almost featureless.  Because it is the lighting, specular, SSS layers and displacement values that makes a skin have all those color variations, highlights and shadows.  A proper cross polarized diffuse map is very unimpressive to look at, but it is all you need to make a believable skin texture on your model.

    Post edited by drzap on
  • drzapdrzap Posts: 795
    edited January 2018
    SnowPheonix said:
    drzap said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    3. Here are even more images. Again I argue that color variations and other surface features we think are so important are highly secondary to a truly convincing normal/bump/displacement and proper specular settings. Let me know if you agree.

    4. Here are some people with a little more age. Do we need to bake little dots into the texture itself to represent the pores? Etch litereral lines into the texture for wrinkles, or should we use a flat albedo texture and use displacement or normals or bump to get us there? I think we need a combo as you've said. Some degree of baking but not too much, as I'm going to give the rest of the job over to my surfacing details. I feel that only the most EXTREME wrinkles and pores need to be baked into the texture. Otherwise, I think it almost always better to use surfacing tech.

    So as you observe here are my questions

    1. Do you think that undereye wrinkles on most of these people can look convincing as mere lines on a texture file, or do they require some amount of 3d surface detailing?

    2. When you look at the lips, do you think there are actual dark etchings on the lips, or are all those shaded regions merely shadows coming from surface disruptions of some sort? Do you think the lips would look as real if the texture maker sells it to me with those lovely shadows baked into it?

    3. Do you observe huge variations in the skin tone? And if so, do you think that these color shifts are more important that the surface specular behavior?

    4. Look at the amount of specular and the width of that specular. Have you EVER seen a render at Daz3d that demonstrates bumpiness and specular width like this? Isnt it interesting how it never looks like plastic?

    True, the only way to get real specular variation like that is to actually affect the mesh.  But then you are talking about a figure with far more polygons than a base DAZ mesh.  Now you are venturing into the deep end of the pool.  You are talking about 3D scans and polarized textures.  Most importantly, you are talking about more knowledge by the artist about how human skin works with its many layers and opacities.  What you are not talking about is a simple photorealistic digital human with an EZ button for $19.95!  The work required to use human figures of that quality far exceed the budget, computer specs, and skill level of the hobbyists who use Daz Studio.  How would they be modeled?  In the neutral pose?  What would happen when a user applies one of those god-awful Daz expression morphs to their digital double?  Why not just put your brand new Ferrari into the hands of a teenager?

    These days we have some incredible tools and technology that make it seem on the surface that anyone can instantly create anything.  No need for skill or training, just push the EZ technology button.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  Artistry can't be democratized and passed out like McDonald's hamburgers.  You can't push a button and say BAM! I made a human.   Daz Studio offers some incredible technology for amateurs to play with, so have fun and enjoy.  But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it can create instant art.  It can't.  If you want real art, you will have to work for it.  Here are some good places to start:  https://www.triplegangers.com/    https://www.cgcircuit.com/course/mari-projection-painting  https://texturing.xyz/collections/human   

    I'd commit to pay a lot more for the right character....I think if you kept the price under $100 (USD) so the amatuer market such as myself don't get priced out like they do with the high end stes that shall be the nameless resources of my Hollywierd conterparts... You should do very well in the long run..  Just thinking out loud.  I could see paying that for a extremely well done character..

    We aren't looking for easy... Even the poor need their Picasso tools to work with..  Ours happen to be the divine figure of our fellow humans.. Make it beautiful. 

    Take care and be blessed.. wonderful learning from you.

    Here are the steps that are required to get that perfect human of yours:

    1. Get a 3D scan of the face you desire.  This is crazy expensive, but there are alternatives.  I have a design for a small carousel that rotates 360 degrees and has room for a chair on top.  I have also designed a special rig that carries 4 DSLR cameras vertically.  By slowly rotating your subject on the carousel and snapping as many photos as possible (my remote), one can capture about 100 high resolution (16K) photos of the entire head.  For completeness sake, you will want to do this process again and again for facial expressions.  About thirty scans will give you complete emotional freedom according to the FACS method.  Google "FACS" for more info.

    2.  What to do with all those photos?  Now the fun part starts.  It involves some software from Agisoft called Photoscan.  It will take all of those photos and create a 3D mesh along with diffuse texture.  At this point, it will be raw and not useable in Daz Studio.  Another step is required.

    3.  After cleaning up the raw scan and baking out displacement maps, we can then retopologize it in the modeling software of choice.  Blender has a good retop tool.  There are many.  We can use any Daz base figure as the target.  When you are finished, you should have a proper mesh to use as a morph target in Daz Studio.

    4.  Next step is preparing the diffuse texture for making your other textures.  This process is explained in the referenced tutorials at the websites I previously linked.

    5.  Finally, you can bring all these assets into Daz Studio and begin making your morphs and iRay shaders to bring your figure to life.

    I have a mind to do this for my personal project in Maya.  The work should carry directly over to Daz since I am using Daz figures.  It is a lot of work.  I am not sure enough people are willing to pay $100 per figure, but it is something a dedicated individual can certainly do.

     

    A word of warning if you decide to go this route.  Beware that in your quest for the perfect Barbie that you don't instead find you have unwittingly acquired a white elephant.  This is because you have only succeeded in creating a photorealistic human head!  It will look out of place when coupled with a regularly textured Daz body.  In fact, unless you plan to take just head shots, you will find all your assets will pale in comparison to your new beautiful beast.  What about clothing?  Hair?  Props?  They all must be brought up to the high bar you have just set.  What about other figures you plan to bring into your scene?  Right, there are no other figures.  At $100 a pop, you are already in the poor house for the one.  And at such a price, how much variety will the market be able to bear?  Will everyone be willing to pay for the pleasure of owning the exact same Victoria 2000 and do they have a beefy enough computer to handle it?  These are things you have to think about and why there is an explicit separation between the hobbyist and the professional market.  There are creative ways to manage this, but they must be thought thru carefully.  I'm just saying, think about it before you decide to take the red pill.

    Post edited by drzap on
  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,990
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    agent unawares said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    e of a car. But how about the lumpy softness of a human face? Much more difficult to pull off.

    YES!

    Hair, too. Painted on eyebrows and flat transmapped hair are huge giveaways that a render is not a photo.

    Even that is highly debateable... My favorite all time product creator and a favorite of my other people I know is Danae's Metropolitian collection...

    https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/the-metropolitan-collection---london-v4-2/97977/

    Arguably the most realistic character in V4 history and she won a couple of awards before the economy crashed in Greece and she stopped making characters... but those character all had 'baked on' hair and no hair options and I found both of them to be useful at different times.  It's a shame that in 10 years .. few people have followed such a great example... and if she made this AMAZING CHARACTER as a v4.. just imagine what we can do with Genesis 8.. the potential is limitless.

    That is an amazing skin indeed, but a ton of lighting is baked in. Light it in a way that doesn't correspond to the baked in light and it falls apart.

    And it was still the most realistic looking character in my arsonal because I make several characters in a scene and not have all my resouces consumed by trying to mimic micro-details.. It seems everything must find a balance... :)  Both are valid techniques to use.

    Yup, it looks great. I know the skin well. But it's a huge cheat, let's not kid ourselves. That highlight on the nose is completely baked in. Light it at an angle and things will start to look pretty bad pretty quickly. This is literally the easiest way to make a skin. Leave all the highlights in as it was in the photo. Often this looks outright horrible, like the usual Facegen stuff, so kudos of course to Danae for tuning it so well that it does look great. But with this method you get around a lot of the actual challenges like proper skin shading, so taking this as a benchmark skin is a bit problematic.

    I think in the end, a combination of different techniques being combined will present the best results and in the end.. thats what we all want.. while of course you are absolutely correct about the light on the nose.. which if you know what to look for is ever present... for me the trade off is worth it since I can minimize a shiny nose's impact real easy to offset like in this old 3delight test render.. having poor details always sucks.

    The way I see it.. if this was something that was "easy" then I'd just go and 'make my own' as so many have fondly suggested I do in the most polite of terms of course.. LOL  No.. there is an art that is involved in knowing the balance of makes a good character.. apparently its very hard work and requires a Rembrandt .. but I've seen the talent here at DAZ and hopefully I can draw it out and if you think about it.. All I'm saying is keep raising the bar.. you are almost their.  Keep up the great work and happy rendering.

    I'm certainly trying. Is it working? angel

     

    sahel_promo_017_001_012.jpg
    1000 x 1300 - 980K
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,830
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    agent unawares said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    e of a car. But how about the lumpy softness of a human face? Much more difficult to pull off.

    YES!

    Hair, too. Painted on eyebrows and flat transmapped hair are huge giveaways that a render is not a photo.

    Even that is highly debateable... My favorite all time product creator and a favorite of my other people I know is Danae's Metropolitian collection...

    https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/the-metropolitan-collection---london-v4-2/97977/

    Arguably the most realistic character in V4 history and she won a couple of awards before the economy crashed in Greece and she stopped making characters... but those character all had 'baked on' hair and no hair options and I found both of them to be useful at different times.  It's a shame that in 10 years .. few people have followed such a great example... and if she made this AMAZING CHARACTER as a v4.. just imagine what we can do with Genesis 8.. the potential is limitless.

    That is an amazing skin indeed, but a ton of lighting is baked in. Light it in a way that doesn't correspond to the baked in light and it falls apart.

    And it was still the most realistic looking character in my arsonal because I make several characters in a scene and not have all my resouces consumed by trying to mimic micro-details.. It seems everything must find a balance... :)  Both are valid techniques to use.

    Yup, it looks great. I know the skin well. But it's a huge cheat, let's not kid ourselves. That highlight on the nose is completely baked in. Light it at an angle and things will start to look pretty bad pretty quickly. This is literally the easiest way to make a skin. Leave all the highlights in as it was in the photo. Often this looks outright horrible, like the usual Facegen stuff, so kudos of course to Danae for tuning it so well that it does look great. But with this method you get around a lot of the actual challenges like proper skin shading, so taking this as a benchmark skin is a bit problematic.

    I think in the end, a combination of different techniques being combined will present the best results and in the end.. thats what we all want.. while of course you are absolutely correct about the light on the nose.. which if you know what to look for is ever present... for me the trade off is worth it since I can minimize a shiny nose's impact real easy to offset like in this old 3delight test render.. having poor details always sucks.

    The way I see it.. if this was something that was "easy" then I'd just go and 'make my own' as so many have fondly suggested I do in the most polite of terms of course.. LOL  No.. there is an art that is involved in knowing the balance of makes a good character.. apparently its very hard work and requires a Rembrandt .. but I've seen the talent here at DAZ and hopefully I can draw it out and if you think about it.. All I'm saying is keep raising the bar.. you are almost their.  Keep up the great work and happy rendering.

    I'm certainly trying. Is it working? angel

     

    Looks great!! The eyes are particularly convincing. The main thing that catches my eye is that there appears to be a reddish sort of glow at the nostrils and ears. I'm assuming that the SSS you have is doing a great job but in a few places it draws a little attention to itself. But this observation is nothing close to a deal breaker, the skin looks fantastic. I suspect you could go even further with pushing some of the surface details, but as DzRap has observed, its only worth it if your image texture is very high in resolution. 4k isnt nearly high enough in some cases. Great work, Blue!

  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,990
    Rashad Carter said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    agent unawares said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    e of a car. But how about the lumpy softness of a human face? Much more difficult to pull off.

    YES!

    Hair, too. Painted on eyebrows and flat transmapped hair are huge giveaways that a render is not a photo.

    Even that is highly debateable... My favorite all time product creator and a favorite of my other people I know is Danae's Metropolitian collection...

    https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/the-metropolitan-collection---london-v4-2/97977/

    Arguably the most realistic character in V4 history and she won a couple of awards before the economy crashed in Greece and she stopped making characters... but those character all had 'baked on' hair and no hair options and I found both of them to be useful at different times.  It's a shame that in 10 years .. few people have followed such a great example... and if she made this AMAZING CHARACTER as a v4.. just imagine what we can do with Genesis 8.. the potential is limitless.

    That is an amazing skin indeed, but a ton of lighting is baked in. Light it in a way that doesn't correspond to the baked in light and it falls apart.

    And it was still the most realistic looking character in my arsonal because I make several characters in a scene and not have all my resouces consumed by trying to mimic micro-details.. It seems everything must find a balance... :)  Both are valid techniques to use.

    Yup, it looks great. I know the skin well. But it's a huge cheat, let's not kid ourselves. That highlight on the nose is completely baked in. Light it at an angle and things will start to look pretty bad pretty quickly. This is literally the easiest way to make a skin. Leave all the highlights in as it was in the photo. Often this looks outright horrible, like the usual Facegen stuff, so kudos of course to Danae for tuning it so well that it does look great. But with this method you get around a lot of the actual challenges like proper skin shading, so taking this as a benchmark skin is a bit problematic.

    I think in the end, a combination of different techniques being combined will present the best results and in the end.. thats what we all want.. while of course you are absolutely correct about the light on the nose.. which if you know what to look for is ever present... for me the trade off is worth it since I can minimize a shiny nose's impact real easy to offset like in this old 3delight test render.. having poor details always sucks.

    The way I see it.. if this was something that was "easy" then I'd just go and 'make my own' as so many have fondly suggested I do in the most polite of terms of course.. LOL  No.. there is an art that is involved in knowing the balance of makes a good character.. apparently its very hard work and requires a Rembrandt .. but I've seen the talent here at DAZ and hopefully I can draw it out and if you think about it.. All I'm saying is keep raising the bar.. you are almost their.  Keep up the great work and happy rendering.

    I'm certainly trying. Is it working? angel

     

    Looks great!! The eyes are particularly convincing. The main thing that catches my eye is that there appears to be a reddish sort of glow at the nostrils and ears. I'm assuming that the SSS you have is doing a great job but in a few places it draws a little attention to itself. But this observation is nothing close to a deal breaker, the skin looks fantastic. I suspect you could go even further with pushing some of the surface details, but as DzRap has observed, its only worth it if your image texture is very high in resolution. 4k isnt nearly high enough in some cases. Great work, Blue!

    Yup it's a lot of SSS that I felt was needed for the skin overall (near infinite hours of testing and tuning really) but does result in a bit too much glow in extremeties, depending on the lighting a lot obviously. I should look into ways to get around that in the future. For now I just had to draw a line, way too much time invested into this as it is. Here's more of her:

    https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/224581/coming-soon-sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female#latest

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,830

    Bluejaunte,

    Fascinating! I've seen bits of her before in some of your posts but hadnt realized how significant she really is. Brilliant. It doesnt look like a Xerox copy of a real skin, it pretty much looks like the skin itself. it seems that most of the specular in the render is indeed coming from the lights in the scene, as it should be. Love it!!!

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Rashad Carter said:

    Snow,

    The more options the better in most cases and pretty much always when it comes to artwork. I don't think there is any disagreement from anyone that details are important. My only point of interest is in which details we decide to emphasize, and why we tend to focus more on some things than other things.

    This is my attempt to explain in more detail why I feel most of our Daz3d renders don't look like true photos even though we always know real humans even from bad photos captured in real life. So what's going on? Part of this goes to the whole discussion of what's the point of the realism in the first place?

    1. As I stated in my above post, there is a difference between skin and a Xerox copy of a skin. A good example is the first image I've included. It features a young female similar to the Danae character. Clearly this is an UNFAIR comparison, but we are talking stark realism here. So many things are done well with the Danae character. I think it looks close enough to the natural thing that my imagination can fill in most of the rest of the blanks in most cases. I feel the artist did an excellent job of giving us the amount of detail we need while not overdoing it. Still, if you were to place the render next to a real photo of a similar looking person our unconscious minds know right away that one is a render. What's missing aside from the real world lighting?

    I would agree.

    But many of us would disagree over what exactly was the issue.

    For me there are far too many (if any) loose single hairs.

    The light reflections in the eyes look fake.

    Pose regularly kills an image for me.

    Hair usually kills it when the pose passes

    Clothes, even with dynamics kill it; clothes are not infinitely thin; they have thickness - a millimetre for thin clothing, but up to about a centimetre is not uncommon.

    I don't care how the skin is made to look believable/real, only that it is (baked in or whatever). The tool and method is NOT important, only the finished result.

    I might not notice though, in that image that it is fake, it is believable enough to be convincing; and we are so used to seing photographs that used to be real, but have been tweaked - and it's been happening since long before computers became the preferred method.

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,714
    edited January 2018
    Rashad Carter said:

    Snow,

    The more options the better in most cases and pretty much always when it comes to artwork. I don't think there is any disagreement from anyone that details are important. My only point of interest is in which details we decide to emphasize, and why we tend to focus more on some things than other things.

    This is my attempt to explain in more detail why I feel most of our Daz3d renders don't look like true photos even though we always know real humans even from bad photos captured in real life. So what's going on? Part of this goes to the whole discussion of what's the point of the realism in the first place?

    1. As I stated in my above post, there is a difference between skin and a Xerox copy of a skin. A good example is the first image I've included. It features a young female similar to the Danae character. Clearly this is an UNFAIR comparison, but we are talking stark realism here. So many things are done well with the Danae character. I think it looks close enough to the natural thing that my imagination can fill in most of the rest of the blanks in most cases. I feel the artist did an excellent job of giving us the amount of detail we need while not overdoing it. Still, if you were to place the render next to a real photo of a similar looking person our unconscious minds know right away that one is a render. What's missing aside from the real world lighting?

    Well looking at those pictures:

    1) Photo - an albino type paleness is heavily present and expected from people with that sort of phenotype. / DAZ model - it is pinky-peachy in those areas instead of the albino type paleness. People notice that and it looks like a child coloring everybody peach. 

    2) Photo - is slightly blurred / DAZ Model - odd effect of some areas being more blurred than a typical photo would be and other areas, eg creasing on the lower lids, being more sharply in focus (or seeming to be because of the normal/bump maps). So it amounts to selective caricature. The DAZ model looks for all the world like an excellent painting.

    In my opinion until a character model SW application and it's models goes to a lot of trouble in comparitive anatomy, including the hundreds of different skin surface texture varients on a single person and maps those varients to individual material/surface zones,  such that those surfaces can but psuedo-randomly initialized & procedurally generated and saved for future use as unique character I don't think that there is much going to happen expecting sufficient people to volunteer or get paid to have their own skin textures and anatomy mapped for such purposes. It's just not a good ideal to expect people to give up that amount of detail about their body with 3D printing becoming ever cheaper and more accurate.

    There is also scant economic motive to do that to that level of exacting detail manually for gaming or other interactive style apps. There is good reason to make such high detailed models in medical and other professional fields but those would have much more stringent privacy requirements than interactivive entertainment media; but it's those medical and other scientific applications that will insist on new automated high resolution technology to create those models on the fly as needed to fit trainers', students', and patients needs.'

    Post edited by nonesuch00 on
  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    agent unawares said:
    Rashad Carter said:

    e of a car. But how about the lumpy softness of a human face? Much more difficult to pull off.

    YES!

    Hair, too. Painted on eyebrows and flat transmapped hair are huge giveaways that a render is not a photo.

    Even that is highly debateable... My favorite all time product creator and a favorite of my other people I know is Danae's Metropolitian collection...

    https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/the-metropolitan-collection---london-v4-2/97977/

    Arguably the most realistic character in V4 history and she won a couple of awards before the economy crashed in Greece and she stopped making characters... but those character all had 'baked on' hair and no hair options and I found both of them to be useful at different times.  It's a shame that in 10 years .. few people have followed such a great example... and if she made this AMAZING CHARACTER as a v4.. just imagine what we can do with Genesis 8.. the potential is limitless.

    That is an amazing skin indeed, but a ton of lighting is baked in. Light it in a way that doesn't correspond to the baked in light and it falls apart.

    And it was still the most realistic looking character in my arsonal because I make several characters in a scene and not have all my resouces consumed by trying to mimic micro-details.. It seems everything must find a balance... :)  Both are valid techniques to use.

    Yup, it looks great. I know the skin well. But it's a huge cheat, let's not kid ourselves. That highlight on the nose is completely baked in. Light it at an angle and things will start to look pretty bad pretty quickly. This is literally the easiest way to make a skin. Leave all the highlights in as it was in the photo. Often this looks outright horrible, like the usual Facegen stuff, so kudos of course to Danae for tuning it so well that it does look great. But with this method you get around a lot of the actual challenges like proper skin shading, so taking this as a benchmark skin is a bit problematic.

    I think in the end, a combination of different techniques being combined will present the best results and in the end.. thats what we all want.. while of course you are absolutely correct about the light on the nose.. which if you know what to look for is ever present... for me the trade off is worth it since I can minimize a shiny nose's impact real easy to offset like in this old 3delight test render.. having poor details always sucks.

    The way I see it.. if this was something that was "easy" then I'd just go and 'make my own' as so many have fondly suggested I do in the most polite of terms of course.. LOL  No.. there is an art that is involved in knowing the balance of makes a good character.. apparently its very hard work and requires a Rembrandt .. but I've seen the talent here at DAZ and hopefully I can draw it out and if you think about it.. All I'm saying is keep raising the bar.. you are almost their.  Keep up the great work and happy rendering.

    I'm certainly trying. Is it working? angel

     

    Damn near perfect in my book.. As long as the same amount of detail flows down to the toes, it should be AMAZING...  It has to be one where even if you wanted to take a picture with her foot in the foreground, you would see the lines on the bottom of her foot and toe prints.. that much attention to detail.

    See.. brilliance everywhere I look.. Love it.  I've been seeing a lot of really good potentials by other sources too..  Some really brilliant products are just around the corner.  I'm really very please in the direction things are going and I have to focus on other aspects that have been recently raised such as clothing too..

    Thanks for sharing.... Keep up the great work.. happy rendering!

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    bluejaunte said:
    SnowPheonix said:
    agent unawares said:
    Rashad Carter said:

     

    Damn near perfect in my book.. As long as the same amount of detail flows down to the toes, it should be AMAZING...  It has to be one where even if you wanted to take a picture with her foot in the foreground, you would see the lines on the bottom of her foot and toe prints.. that much attention to detail.

    See.. brilliance everywhere I look.. Love it.  I've been seeing a lot of really good potentials by other sources too..  Some really brilliant products are just around the corner.  I'm really very please in the direction things are going and I have to focus on other aspects that have been recently raised such as clothing too..

    Thanks for sharing.... Keep up the great work.. happy rendering!

    I find this amusing, to be honest. You're basically asking for a return to the days where artists have to remove unwanted details from the textures or not buy an otherwise good product because it's going to straitjacket their artwork.

  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896

    So... back to the most beautiful and realistic.. while skin is important, I find that just as imporatn is a great morph and whats interesting to me is that many times I find I love a skin but hate the morph so I put the skins on morphs that I do like and .. happy.. happy camper...  It's funny to hear people talking about products not being made when I see them being made for me as we speak.. It really is a beautiful process to watch and thanks to the people who keep giving me the inside scoops on whats going on ... 

    You know whats cool is when your renders end up looking like somebody you know...  I also agree that we have to be fairly picky about hair and clothing and everything has to be uniquely addressed to meet a certain standard..  Anyways.. I find that adjusting the reflectivity and translucency in the surface tabs play a huge part of getting the look.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts... happy rendering.

    alarnaaaa.png
    1288 x 575 - 1M
  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,766

    I'm going to throw my thoughts in on this one.

    "Beautiful" and "Realistic"
    These two can not be achieved at the same time with any single character that is for sale.  Part of being beautiful and realistic also comes from being unique (in my opinion).  Here's a character that I've been working on.  She's a mix of Charlotte 8, DE Alice, and a bunch of small adjustment morphs.  She also has customized hair materials.

    I think that she is very beautiful (for the 40+ catagory) and is quite realistic looking.

  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896
    JamesJAB said:

    I'm going to throw my thoughts in on this one.

    "Beautiful" and "Realistic"
    These two can not be achieved at the same time with any single character that is for sale.  Part of being beautiful and realistic also comes from being unique (in my opinion).  Here's a character that I've been working on.  She's a mix of Charlotte 8, DE Alice, and a bunch of small adjustment morphs.  She also has customized hair materials.

    I think that she is very beautiful (for the 40+ catagory) and is quite realistic looking.

    I agree with you... but if I were you.. I would try lowering the translucency just a little bit on that character and bring down the reflecting on the surface tab but then.. I keep doing that to all the characters I'm rendering and it seems to have nice results.. Here is a render I'm playing with.. Pearl...

    alarna3aea.png
    1288 x 575 - 2M
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,830

    Daywalker- The previous quotes are nested pretty deeply so its difficult to know which comment you are responding to. If you're responding to my post I will try to clarify what I intended to project. In my case I am simply saying that we should know what the render engine can contribute and to allow it to do so, instead of trying to get the entire finalozed effect based solely off of the details in a texture map. Let the texure do half of the work, and the render engine do the rest. Doing too much with the texture detail leaves little or nothing for the render engine to do other than to spoil what the texture has already done.

     

    Closeup.jpg
    1800 x 1100 - 199K
  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    edited January 2018
    Rashad Carter said:

    Daywalker- The previous quotes are nested pretty deeply so its difficult to know which comment you are responding to. If you're responding to my post I will try to clarify what I intended to project. In my case I am simply saying that we should know what the render engine can contribute and to allow it to do so, instead of trying to get the entire finalozed effect based solely off of the details in a texture map. Let the texure do half of the work, and the render engine do the rest. Doing too much with the texture detail leaves little or nothing for the render engine to do other than to spoil what the texture has already done.

     

    I actually agree with you on this. What I find annoying is when people think that baked in hair color is okay, when it clearly limits what you can do with a given skin. And the mangled quote tree is one reason why I detest Google Chrome.

    @SnowPheonix, the "bland" textures wouldn't exist if people wanted all of the stuff you consider essential as a part of the texture.
    Post edited by Daywalker Designs on
  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896

    As an example of one of my recent purchases on DAZ, I liked the Tara 2 HD for Gen 8 character that was recently put out.. I like the duel skinned, duel use characters...  The added devil character in that set makes for a nice backup character and the skin in the package had a passible if not 'too perfect' skin that makes for some nice renders and .. I love the morph.  I felt like I got a great character set... Would love to see one like this with Angelic version ..  I also have to focus on which Hair and clothing are the most realistic.. it doesn't do much good having brilliant skin with hair looks fake or clothing that looks two dimensional.... So I need the 'most realistic' everything...  Naturally.. I collect HDRI's too...

    tara3a.png
    1288 x 575 - 923K
  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,388

    Very informative posts.  Thanks for all the wonderful insights.  I'm always learning, especially from Rashad.

     

    I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on realism.  Story.  The brain is easily fooled by context.  Maybe if there are only six more hours to research the science of realism, spend one of the six hours studying how magicians defeat scientists.  Rather than having 100% of the focus on UNwilling suspension of disbelief (a hyper-skeptical viewer won't be able to distinguish from a photograph), spend maybe 10% of the time on how to lead the viewer to want to willingly suspend disbelief.   Magicians have been doing it for centuries.  

    https://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147980272/teller-talks-magicians-use-science-to-trick-you

    and

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114081445

     

  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896
    edited January 2018
    Diomede said:

    Very informative posts.  Thanks for all the wonderful insights.  I'm always learning, especially from Rashad.

     

    I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on realism.  Story.  The brain is easily fooled by context.  Maybe if there are only six more hours to research the science of realism, spend one of the six hours studying how magicians defeat scientists.  Rather than having 100% of the focus on UNwilling suspension of disbelief (a hyper-skeptical viewer won't be able to distinguish from a photograph), spend maybe 10% of the time on how to lead the viewer to want to willingly suspend disbelief.   Magicians have been doing it for centuries.  

    https://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147980272/teller-talks-magicians-use-science-to-trick-you

    and

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114081445

     

    Love the way that you think... For me... I like the idea of setting the top standard.. pure photo-realism and then make that look surreal .. since of course we are the music makers and we .. are the dreamers of dreams.  We must also realize that with improvements in technology, our craft must learn new tricks and adapt to the High Definition manipulations that people have come to expect in media... less we become nothing but jesters only fooling ourselves.

    Post edited by SnowPheonix on
  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,990

    Hmm... could I make a particularly fine pair of breasts to distract from missing realism in the face? I shall try in the name of sience.

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,388

    And if the breasts have silicone and the face has botox, which is more real?  More research needed.  LOL

    .

     

    bluejaunte said:

    Hmm... could I make a particularly fine pair of breasts to distract from missing realism in the face? I shall try in the name of sience.

     

  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,990

    I will use pixels only cool

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    Diomede said:

    Very informative posts.  Thanks for all the wonderful insights.  I'm always learning, especially from Rashad.

     

    I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on realism.  Story.  The brain is easily fooled by context.  Maybe if there are only six more hours to research the science of realism, spend one of the six hours studying how magicians defeat scientists.  Rather than having 100% of the focus on UNwilling suspension of disbelief (a hyper-skeptical viewer won't be able to distinguish from a photograph), spend maybe 10% of the time on how to lead the viewer to want to willingly suspend disbelief.   Magicians have been doing it for centuries.  

    https://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147980272/teller-talks-magicians-use-science-to-trick-you

    and

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114081445

     

    Provide what a person expects to see, and the details that are missing will be overlooked. Also, being consistent in the colors of expected details, like having hair, eyelashes and eyebrows all one color will improve the illusion of reality.
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,830
    Daywalker Designs said:
    Diomede said:

    Very informative posts.  Thanks for all the wonderful insights.  I'm always learning, especially from Rashad.

     

    I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective on realism.  Story.  The brain is easily fooled by context.  Maybe if there are only six more hours to research the science of realism, spend one of the six hours studying how magicians defeat scientists.  Rather than having 100% of the focus on UNwilling suspension of disbelief (a hyper-skeptical viewer won't be able to distinguish from a photograph), spend maybe 10% of the time on how to lead the viewer to want to willingly suspend disbelief.   Magicians have been doing it for centuries.  

    https://www.npr.org/2012/03/05/147980272/teller-talks-magicians-use-science-to-trick-you

    and

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114081445

     

     

    Provide what a person expects to see, and the details that are missing will be overlooked. Also, being consistent in the colors of expected details, like having hair, eyelashes and eyebrows all one color will improve the illusion of reality.

    Snow Pheonix- I like your image uploads!! I like the most recent one the best. I think the thread is useful and it takes bravery to even begin such a thread. Naturally the exact subject of focus tends to wander a bit but I think overall we are all on the same page. Most of the shots are featuring indirect lighting, which will often not bring out much of the specular highlights. The shot with the sun is easier to view. If by any chance you were pushing for realism, I'd say you could probably lower the reflective/Specular aspect of the dress a tiny bit, mkaing it seem slightly more matte. As far as the skin, I've begun to suspect that there's something not quite right going on with the SSS behavior in Iray, or at least the settings they are suggesting to you all as the default. I see it all the time even with Bluejuantes amazing submission. I don't yet have the skill in Iray to diagnose this issue. In Octane I'd know what to do to fix it. Needles to say, it is a high tendency for us to exaggerate certain coveted effects like SSS because we've been instructed for so many years that this was the one aspect that would contribute most to the realism. And indeed it is and does contribute the most. But once we gain enough experience as artists to see what SSS does, we should then be able to apply less exaggerated settings that still look good even if they don't scream SSS!

    Nonesuch- I agree with you very much. I personally have never liked the idea that my skin texturing options would be limited by the number of people who are willing to be imaged while naked and afraid in some dark room somewhere. There must be some other means, likely a procedural one, that can do a lot of that texturing magic for us. There's also a ton of truth to the ideal that there's nothing quite like the real thing...that we could never truly fake it. But as we've discussed in this and other threads, with the right details in place, people's own willingness to believe will fill in most of the remaining blanks.

    Diomede- Thanks! I learn a ton from you as well. Thanks for sharing your insights on magic and willful suspension of belief. Very useful and completely appropriate to this discussion!!!

    Daywalker- Indeed you and I are thinking very much alike. This ties in well with Diomedes observations. I too feel that providing the expected details is wiser than trying to capture every single possible detail. The issue comes in knowing which details people are going to expect, from those they are unlikely to expect.

    Expectations- For a comparison I often use the musicical example of tonal signatures. If a piece of music is written in C major, then a listener will unconsciously know that something is odd if an F# is played. Same is true for ranges. A tone is played that is extremely high or extremely low in comparison with the other tones in a piece will become distinct to the listener.

    In visual art I believe there is also a "key" signature of sorts... a way to set up viewer expectations as appropriate for this specific image... a set of rules established in a piece that then must remain consistent throughout the piece for the unconscious mind of the viewer not to sound any alarms. Ideals such as scaling, positioning, overall modeling accuracy like gravity and cloth simulations and hair movement come into play. This is also where I believe lighting plays the biggest role.

    Lighting (key signature)- You'll notice there are often settings in Iray and other engines that are global. Examples are Saturation / Contrast / Gamma / Exposure / White Balance etc.. These are the types of adjustments that must be applied to the entire image for it to work as intended on the viewer. This means that if your contrast settings are high, causing highlights to be bright and shadows to be very dark, that a random shadow that doesnt reach the necessary level of darkness will stick out like an F# played while in the key of C.That's not to say you should NEVER play an F# while in the key of C, because you can, and it will give the piece a sense of magic and specialness in that particular musical phrase if the countermodelies are complimentary....the composer having obviously made the conscious decision to draw the listener's focus to that musical phrase. Same applies to images. If in a visual image we tweak and break the global settings in some local way it too will look special and magical. Such as glowing hands or eyes that radiate more light than they receive from the otherwise thermodynamically accurate surrounding environment. The only question is if we produced said rule breaks on purpose or by accident. By accident usually meaning that the artist didn't have the skill to ask certain types of questions and assigned values arbitrarily going by what looked okay rather than by any other sort of criterion. If applied by accident these breaks in key signature are probably going to have a deliterious effect, like a random gene mutations; most of them don't work out so well for the organism. However if the artist purposefully broke the key signature of this visual image, the result will probably be positive, like a gene mutation stimulated by changes in the environment rather than by random mistakes in gene sequencing.

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    Rashad Carter, in my mind, providing details like I mentioned previously as well as taking into account apparent distance from figure and how real human skin looks under various lighting conditions will do more to "fool" someone into believing a render is a photo than providing unseen under normal circumstances details will.
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,830
    Daywalker Designs said:
    Rashad Carter, in my mind, providing details like I mentioned previously as well as taking into account apparent distance from figure and how real human skin looks under various lighting conditions will do more to "fool" someone into believing a render is a photo than providing unseen under normal circumstances details will.

    At the end user level this your statement is fully applicable. The issue comes in with PA's developing content that will be used by other people in ways the PA cannot neceesarily predict. The assumption that renders will be performed at extremely close range is what pushes people to aim for more details. What's a PA to do?

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    Rashad Carter said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    Rashad Carter, in my mind, providing details like I mentioned previously as well as taking into account apparent distance from figure and how real human skin looks under various lighting conditions will do more to "fool" someone into believing a render is a photo than providing unseen under normal circumstances details will.

    At the end user level this your statement is fully applicable. The issue comes in with PA's developing content that will be used by other people in ways the PA cannot neceesarily predict. The assumption that renders will be performed at extremely close range is what pushes people to aim for more details. What's a PA to do?

    Compromise, since there are at least two competing camps. There are already PAs that are providing a no-brow face option and occasionally a no-makeup one too for females; both forms can have the same fine details like pores and freckles included so there is consistency in appearance no matter which version is used. It can be taken further by the PAs at their option.
  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896
    Daywalker Designs said:

     

    @SnowPheonix, the "bland" textures wouldn't exist if people wanted all of the stuff you consider essential as a part of the texture.

    Thou doth protest too much.

This discussion has been closed.