Can an expert give a final word on Catmark Subdiv and How To in Maya?

ianbercovrossianbercovross Posts: 6
edited November 9 in Daz Studio Discussion

Hey All,

 

I've spent a couple weeks now getting my FBX exports perfect out of Daz and setting up my Genesis 8 figure in Maya. I'm at the final stage, which has me totally stumped: subdivision.

For the sake of clarity, I want to say at the outset that I am exporting only the hi-res mesh and of course WITHOUT any subdivision in Daz as that, as we all know, is impossible.

What has me baffled is that all Maya's subdivision algorithms (namely Opensubdiv and Maya Catmull-Clark) do not subdivide the way Daz's "Catmark" does. Instead Maya subdivides exactly like Daz's "Catmull-Clark Legacy" does.

You can notice that "Catmull-Clark Legacy" is a bad option for the G8 figure by looking at the teeth. "Catmull-Clark Legacy" overly smooths the teeth and shrinks them, whereas "Catmark" actually makes the teeth bigger than the actual "cage" or original hi-res mesh at sub-division 0.

 

This leads me to two primary questions:

1) What is "catmark" subdivision? There is very little information, except one forum post that mentions it is a newer Pixar refinement of Opensubdiv. I also see a couple development docs relating "catmark" to an option in Opensubdiv called Sub_tri_Catmark, but no idea what this is or where to set it in Maya when using Opensubdiv.

2) How can I get Maya to subdivide the hi-res mesh the way that Daz does? To do this I would need to know what "catmark" is doing and recreate that in Maya or find a Maya addon or find the right settings in Maya (I have tried a lot with both smooth mesh preview, subdivision proxies, and renderer specific subdivision algorithms.

 

In the attached screenshot you can see what Maya's subdivision does to the teeth. it shrinks and smooths them in a way that doesn't look right at all. This seems to be exactly what Daz's "Catmull-Clark Legacy" does also.

 

teeth.png
1118 x 760 - 175K
Post edited by ianbercovross on

Comments

  • I realized the gap teeth were due to the HD Mouth Realism morph. Still wondering about my questions though : ) 

  • JD_MortalJD_Mortal Posts: 496

    You may want to look into the settings for the sub-divisions. It determines how hard/soft certain aspects of the "deformations" will be calculated. In Daz3D, the settings are for "Sharp edges", and "Normals smoothed", by default, for Gen8. Nothing except "Catmark", with those settings, will look exactly like Daz3D subdivisions. If you do not have settings for those options, then you may be out of luck. Though, they may be worded another way, in another program.

  • Dave230Dave230 Posts: 266
    edited November 9

    I believe the legacy Catmull-Clark stuff was what DazStudio used before OpenSubDiv was supported.  Which probably means they wrote it themselves, so how can you expect it to work exactly the same somewhere else?  DS didn't use Pixar's OSD until version 4.5.2.40.

    Post edited by Dave230 on
  • Dave230 said:

    I believe the legacy Catmull-Clark stuff was what DazStudio used before OpenSubDiv was supported.  Which probably means they wrote it themselves, so how can you expect it to work exactly the same somewhere else?  DS didn't use Pixar's OSD until version 4.5.2.40.

    I can't say i'm expecting anything in particular, but i can say i'm trying to get as close as I can in Maya.

    Unfortunately no matter what I try I'm losing a lot of detail on the ears and inside mouth/teeth in particular.

    I can't even figure out if I should be exporting the hi resolution mesh or the base mesh from Daz to Maya via fbx?? You can see subtle difference in the waterline/lash placement between the two. So all in all I'm pretty confused.

    I understand that it's a tall order to expect to get Daz's HD levels as I don't even know how they do it. Some kind of blending of an equally subdivided mesh that had displacement maps baked? Dunno : /

     

  • Dave230 said:

    I believe the legacy Catmull-Clark stuff was what DazStudio used before OpenSubDiv was supported.  Which probably means they wrote it themselves, so how can you expect it to work exactly the same somewhere else?  DS didn't use Pixar's OSD until version 4.5.2.40.

    I can't say i'm expecting anything in particular, but i can say i'm trying to get as close as I can in Maya.

    Unfortunately no matter what I try I'm losing a lot of detail on the ears and inside mouth/teeth in particular.

    I can't even figure out if I should be exporting the hi resolution mesh or the base mesh from Daz to Maya via fbx?? You can see subtle difference in the waterline/lash placement between the two. So all in all I'm pretty confused.

    I understand that it's a tall order to expect to get Daz's HD levels as I don't even know how they do it. Some kind of blending of an equally subdivided mesh that had displacement maps baked? Dunno : /

    Export the base mesh, then apply SubD in Maya. HD moprhs will not trasnfer via FBX - you will need tore create them in Maya (I believe it can do that) via an OBJ files exported with the high resolution shape.

  • ianbercovrossianbercovross Posts: 6
    edited November 11
    Dave230 said:

    I believe the legacy Catmull-Clark stuff was what DazStudio used before OpenSubDiv was supported.  Which probably means they wrote it themselves, so how can you expect it to work exactly the same somewhere else?  DS didn't use Pixar's OSD until version 4.5.2.40.

    I can't say i'm expecting anything in particular, but i can say i'm trying to get as close as I can in Maya.

    Unfortunately no matter what I try I'm losing a lot of detail on the ears and inside mouth/teeth in particular.

    I can't even figure out if I should be exporting the hi resolution mesh or the base mesh from Daz to Maya via fbx?? You can see subtle difference in the waterline/lash placement between the two. So all in all I'm pretty confused.

    I understand that it's a tall order to expect to get Daz's HD levels as I don't even know how they do it. Some kind of blending of an equally subdivided mesh that had displacement maps baked? Dunno : /

    Export the base mesh, then apply SubD in Maya. HD moprhs will not trasnfer via FBX - you will need tore create them in Maya (I believe it can do that) via an OBJ files exported with the high resolution shape.

    I had hoped something like that would work, but with all my attempts to create a blendshape between the base mesh subdivided in maya and the HD obj, it never works. I'm guessing this is because the subdivision algorithms are different and even though the poly/vertex count is the exact same between both, the vertex ids are different. I'm just speculating. 

    I heard you can use the seuvblendshape plugin, but don't know how reliable that is.

    Post edited by ianbercovross on
  • DS is using OpenSubDiv so I'm not sure why the results would be inconsistent. Indeed, as far as I am aware HD moprhs are built on the OpenSubDiv version of multi-resolution morphs, though treat that with a cinsiderable degree of wariness.

  • >I'm at the final stage, which has me totally stumped: subdivision.

    Place two Genesis 8 Females in your scene. "Subdivide" only one of them. Color one white and one red. Subdivision isn't in the habit of swelling your character, yet your "subdivided" character is bigger than its base resolution counterpart (like the teeth you noticed). No software package will mimic that high res daz character. Houdini and Maya both give identical results across the board for subdivision methods, I'll bet most packages will. Daz is the odd one out, because it's not just subdiving. Subdivision is EXTREMELY predictable. You don't have a subdivision problem. You have a daz problem.

    If you just wanted a static character, you would have converted to prop and transfered that, so I'm assuming you want to move the character, in which case you are so, so far from the final stage. If you're intending to use a rigged character in Maya, take my advice: Abandon ship. It's not going to happen, and whatever does happen is going to look completely atrocious. Don't believe people who claim to have managed. They have not. Unless they completely redid the rig and weights, in which case they've essentially rebuilt the character, not transfered it. I don't call applying a normal map and making a close-up of a characters default, un-changed face "managing to transfer a character", and if you're trying to solve the problem you are, neither do you.

     

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 1,952
    edited November 16

     If you're intending to use a rigged character in Maya, take my advice: Abandon ship. It's not going to happen, and whatever does happen is going to look completely atrocious. Don't believe people who claim to have managed. They have not. Unless they completely redid the rig and weights, in which case they've essentially rebuilt the character, not transfered it. I don't call applying a normal map and making a close-up of a characters default, un-changed face "managing to transfer a character"


    Hi 
    as a person with a multi application character animation pipeline
    Iclone Pro/Daz studio /Maxon C4D/Lightwave3D 2015,
    I Must agree with your general sentiment although I would not call it a"problem"

    it is a simple REALITY...
     IMHO.....
    When you leave Daz studio.. You leave Genesis
    When you leave Daz studio.. You leave Genesis
    When you leave Daz studio.. You...... leave...... Genesis.


    I export MDD animated genesis meshes to Maxon C4D where I use the maxon 

    subdivisional surface modifier along
    With a normal map for "HD detail" and  I get an animated figure that looks very 

    much  like the original genesis model did in Daz studio
    (see attached pic of Darius 6 still shot from my animated film project)

     No teeth distortion or bloating.

    However I harbor no Illusions
    These are Empty C4D  copies of Daz meshes driven by external MDD files ..NOT "Genesis in  C4D"

    In My Opinion The Genesis to Maya plugins are the big lie people keep fobbing off to themselves and each other.
    They use the Daz  industry standard FBX exporter to bake out a rigged copy of the Genesis base mesh.
    and engage in all manner of  scripted trickery and nerdy McNerd technobabble to distract people from realizing that they are simply using the native rigging and weighting tools of the importing app to try to emulate the general behavior of a Daz genesis model with regard to joint deformations.

    And in the end you still have to perform all manner of manual labor trying to recreate a fully functional genesis model  outside of its native environment of Daz studio.

    A truly pointless endeavor IMHO.

     

    DARIOUS 6 from film.jpg
    800 x 448 - 126K
    Post edited by wolf359 on
Sign In or Register to comment.