Normal maps? Modelling? Something else?

FWIW

So I am working on a character for someone and I am stuck on something. The skin looks to smooth. This guy is supposed to be in his late 50's-early sixties. The reference images have noticeable wrinkles around the eyes, mouth, and neck, some very very jowls, and some minor wrinkling on the back of the hands. I haven't ever down anything like this before so I could really use some advice on how to handle it. I know I can get some of it with morphs, but the subtler stuff, the finer lines and such around the eyes and mouth... I am not skilled enough to model those into Genesis 8. Maybe with a frick ton more polys but I am not good enough for what he has to offer. 

I have never used or made a normal map before, I don't super understand them but I am willing to learn if that is the best route. Or would displacement and bumps be the way to go? 

Oso3D

I would see if you could convert it into something like a passable bump map, then try converting it to a Normal map.

At a first pass, Photoshop's Bump -> Normal MIGHT work. If it doesn't, then bring it into some modeling/paint program that can do the job for you (Substance Painter would work)

 

FWIW

Unfortunately, I don't have photoshop or Substance Painter (Nor can I afford them at the moment) I have Gimp, Krita, FireAlpaca, and Sai. I believe I have a link to a site that does something similar to Photoshops method though. So I will give that a try, thank you. 

Sven Dullah

Definitely not an expert, but imo displacement looks better than normal maps as they add "real" geometry to the mesh. Displacement maps are pretty easy to make in GIMP.

nicstt

I'd look to do displacement and normal maps; both have their place. Often normal maps are fine, however, a character's outline doesn't change with them which is where HD, or in your case, displacement comes in.

Just remember, for displacement subD will need to be higher... Up to 5 or 6 even, which might kill your computer.

I find that using normal maps, even with displacement is of benefit; displace larger effects, and let the normal maps do some of the details; but again, it is about seeing what works best in any given situation.

Odaa

FWIW said:

 

FWIW said:

Unfortunately, I don't have photoshop or Substance Painter (Nor can I afford them at the moment) I have Gimp, Krita, FireAlpaca, and Sai. I believe I have a link to a site that does something similar to Photoshops method though. So I will give that a try, thank you. 

I don't know if this is compatible with your version of GIMP*, but it looks like GIMP has or had its own version of the Photoshop bump to normal tool: http://registry.gimp.org/node/69

*(My previous computer didn't like GIMP so I switched to paint.net, and am not up to speed on all the GIMP details).

Oso3D

In my experience (and believe me, I've been trying a lot of wacky stuff), for MOST regular purposes, displacement isn't necessary. Things like fine wrinkles and details like being described, the displacement involved would only make a noticeable difference at extreme closeups, and even then most people will probably not notice, and then it requires subd 4 or more to pull it off.

Unless you are making cactus people covered with thorns or something, I'd focus on Normals.

 

Sven Dullah

Oso3D said:

In my experience (and believe me, I've been trying a lot of wacky stuff), for MOST regular purposes, displacement isn't necessary. Things like fine wrinkles and details like being described, the displacement involved would only make a noticeable difference at extreme closeups, and even then most people will probably not notice, and then it requires subd 4 or more to pull it off.

Unless you are making cactus people covered with thorns or something, I'd focus on Normals.

 

That might be true if rendering with IRay.

Oso3D

Ah, I assumed the op was talking about Iray.

 

DarkEdgeDesign

Maybe you can look into a "free" app called xNormal, it can convert a wide variety of things

frank0314

Sven Dullah said:

Definitely not an expert, but imo displacement looks better than normal maps as they add "real" geometry to the mesh. Displacement maps are pretty easy to make in GIMP.

Normal maps are definitely superior to displacement maps. A lot of the packs you get today only have normal maps because they are so much more powerful

Sven Dullah

frank0314 said:

Sven Dullah said:

Definitely not an expert, but imo displacement looks better than normal maps as they add "real" geometry to the mesh. Displacement maps are pretty easy to make in GIMP.

Normal maps are definitely superior to displacement maps. A lot of the packs you get today only have normal maps because they are so much more powerful

What do you mean more powerful? I've always thought they look "fake". For example two stonewalls with normal maps creating a depth effect meet to form a corner. Everything looks gorgeous, except the corner line is totally straight, and the shadow of the corner cast on the ground is also 100% straight. Do you know what I mean?

Could it be that, since IRay doesn't handle displacement that well, PAs have started to use normal maps instead?

j cade

Sven Dullah said:

frank0314 said:

Sven Dullah said:

Definitely not an expert, but imo displacement looks better than normal maps as they add "real" geometry to the mesh. Displacement maps are pretty easy to make in GIMP.

Normal maps are definitely superior to displacement maps. A lot of the packs you get today only have normal maps because they are so much more powerful

What do you mean more powerful? I've always thought they look "fake". For example two stonewalls with normal maps creating a depth effect meet to form a corner. Everything looks gorgeous, except the corner line is totally straight, and the shadow of the corner cast on the ground is also 100% straight. Do you know what I mean?

Could it be that, since IRay doesn't handle displacement that well, PAs have started to use normal maps instead?

Normal maps create the *illusion* of the mesh moving in the x y and z directions. Displacement maps physically move the mesh forwards or back *along the normal* (perpendicular to the face). For completely changing the form of the mesh displacement has obvious advantages, for adding fine detail normal mapps are 100% the way to go. As an example it's much easier to make a fine crease with a normal map, with a displacement map not only would you need the mesh resolution, but also a comparatively higher texture resolution.

It is important to note that displacement requires more memory etc than normals in *all* render engines. Though iray's lack of addaptive tessalation is particularly onerous

I should also note that there is a form of displacement that can move in the x y and z directions called vector displacement, however this is not afaik available in DS and not widely used in general.

Oso3D

I ran an experiment where I took the Exile Subd 4 HD morph, bake it to Normals, and see how it looks as primarily a normal rather than morph.

Granted, a morph isn't a displacement, but a lot of the same principles apply.

For fine details? I think Normals are almost as good, and use far fewer resources. And at anything beyond great closeups, that difference is very small. (Mind you, again, fine details -- making Pinhead, or like my Oso Fur, well, displacement)

(Click image for muuuuch bigger version)

 

Sven Dullah

Oso3D said:

I ran an experiment where I took the Exile Subd 4 HD morph, bake it to Normals, and see how it looks as primarily a normal rather than morph.

Granted, a morph isn't a displacement, but a lot of the same principles apply.

For fine details? I think Normals are almost as good, and use far fewer resources. And at anything beyond great closeups, that difference is very small. (Mind you, again, fine details -- making Pinhead, or like my Oso Fur, well, displacement)

(Click image for muuuuch bigger version)

 

Very interesting indeed! And yeah those eyes are gorgeous=)

Richard Haseltine

j cade said:

I should also note that there is a form of displacement that can move in the x y and z directions called vector displacement, however this is not afaik available in DS and not widely used in general.

We did have some fun in Shader Mixer setting up vector displacement, back in the dim and distant past (might even have been on the old forum). I don't know if Iray could do the same.

marble

Oso3D said:

I ran an experiment where I took the Exile Subd 4 HD morph, bake it to Normals, and see how it looks as primarily a normal rather than morph.

Granted, a morph isn't a displacement, but a lot of the same principles apply.

For fine details? I think Normals are almost as good, and use far fewer resources. And at anything beyond great closeups, that difference is very small. (Mind you, again, fine details -- making Pinhead, or like my Oso Fur, well, displacement)

(Click image for muuuuch bigger version)

 

As a matter of interest, how did you bake the HD details to a Normal Map? I tried this with the xNormal freebie but couldn't get it to work (though that was probably a couple of years ago, I guess).

Oso3D

Substance Painter, Mudbox, and others can bake normals by comparing a low density mesh to a high density mesh. This is useful for _morphs_, not displacement maps (although many of these programs can also create a Normal map from height/bump/displacement maps)

xNormal and similar would work to convert a displacement map to a Normal map, which is handy for 3DL to Iray conversions.