3Delight vs Others
marble
Posts: 7,449
This is really a continuation of a conversation started in the Octane thread regarding comparisons of render engines. I was asking for advice and commenting that 3Delight, to me, doesn't look natural. Others disagreed and posted some impressive images. So, after years of only using Luxrender, I decided to try 3Delight again. Clearly, I'm not going to get great results after a day or so but I'll just post some renders taken from the same scene: one from Luxrender and two from 3Delight. The only difference between the two 3Delight renders was the Gamma ... the darker of the two had Gamma off, the other had Gamma set to 2.2 (It makes quite a difference).
I'd appreciate any advice on how to make them look better. I used the free render profiles (High Quality) from Adam and the free light set from Inane Glory.
[EDIT] - the quality of the uploaded jpegs is pretty awful so it doesn't really show a true comparison, unfortunately.
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
What I would like to avoid in 3Delight is that shading at the edges of objects and people. That's what makes the renders look so unnatural to me. The first (Luxrender) picture, above, does not have a dark edge - nor would anything naturally lit, I think. But both of the 3Delight efforts do have it.
The darker area is generally caused by using plain Lambert diffuse. Try using UberSurface, which is bundled with DAZ Studio instead of the standard/default DS Surface shader. You'll find another setting in the diffuse section of the shader, called roughness. Decrease the value to something like 0.75. This is Oren Nayar diffuse. If you change the value to something above 1, you'll eventually get the same diffuse as the standard shader.
Changing the rougness to something below 1 will make darker areas more sharp so try not to use values lower than 0.75 (for skin).
Thanks, Wowie.
I need to remind myself how to apply Ubersurface instead of DS defaults. I think I've found the page on Omnifreaker's site:
http://www.omnifreaker.com/index.php?title=HumanSurface
UberSurface is much more advanced that Human Surface and much more capable. You'll find it in ...\My DAZ 3D Library\Shader Presets\omnifreaker\UberSurface
UberSurface is much more advanced that Human Surface and much more capable. You'll find it in ...\My DAZ 3D Library\Shader Presets\omnifreaker\UberSurface
It is just that his Ubersurface page points to the Human Surface page for details.
I also found this thread:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/30047/
Also, the angle and kind of light makes a big difference. Try an area light.
EDIT: Oops, either I imagined what I saw or the images changed. Maybe I need a nap. Lighting direction looks different now as do the shadows.
Looks like the lighting setup is different in Luxrender with a light also to the right. The shadows on the walls are different in both.
Although I'm a big fan or using area lights, the complexity and limitations makes me suggest using UberEnvironment2 first. Even with just plain ambient occlusion, it can give you rather pleasing images. Below is a render made with UE2 set to ambient occlusion with directional shadows using the Kitchen HDRI preset. There are other lights of course - four directional/distant light and I removed the ceiling and some of the walls so they can light the scene.
Probably should've made the stove hood have a more blurry reflection.
Yeah - the Reality Mesh Lights don't work in 3Delight so the lighting is different, as is the direction. It was just a quick test.
This is with just plain UE2 AO and no HDRI image. I turned down the intensity a bit to try and match the one earlier. I also made the hood have more blurry reflections.
For the 2nd render, I rotated the lights so it's more inline to the camera angle.
Everything in the scene uses UberSurface2, but you can get something close with just UberSurface.
try using AO at say around 75% strength. See the legs on the chairs and table legs. That has always been an issue. I like IE2 using Indirect Lighting more as that gives or more simulated light bounce but with more render time. Also try to avoid using the GI preset as IMHO and others I have spoken to about GI is that it is a waste of time using it.
I wouldn't say that. You should try mustakettu85's script in wancow's thread. I would even dare say that with the script, bounceGI renders faster than pure indirect light mode of UE2.
I'm by no means an expert, or even very knowledgeable with regard to 3Delight, and I haven't used the light set you linked to. But, from Inane Glory's description (renders quickly), and the "shading at the edges of the objects" you mention, I'm guessing the light set uses a fair amount of ambient occlusion. For ease of use and very good render quality I've had great luck with Inane Glory's Photo Studio (http://www.daz3d.com/inaneglory-s-photo-studio) and Photo Studio 2 (http://www.daz3d.com/inaneglorys-photo-studio-2). There are several quality settings, and it's easy for me to get very good results. Below are links to a couple of images I did a couple of years ago using Photo Studio, I don't believe they suffer from the dark outlines you mentioned. I think they come the closest in 3D quality from 3Delight to some of my early Lux and Octane renders, but you would be the best one to judge if the lighting and render quality is what you are looking for (not outstanding renders by any means - but they should give you an idea about the quality of the renders by mere mortals from IG's Photo Studio products) - the first one is the best of the two, the second was just a quick test render that I liked how it came out (warning - nudity).
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2306371
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2407007
As you get back into 3Delight you will quickly see that compared to Lux there are a lot more lighting and surface "options" that can improve the quality of your render. You will also find that using a "biased" renderer isn't as simple as an "unbiased" renderer, which is why the current industry trend for many of the big studios is toward more path-tracing/"unbiased" workflows (using the philosophy that more computers for the render farm are cheaper than paying for the additional people based production costs incurred with the highly biased workflow to get the "real 3D" quality that most productions now need). As for render quality, in the right hands (or with the proper add-ons available for DS), 3Delight is definitely capable of very realistic renders, but like anything in 3D, there is a bit of a learning curve to get there.
I wouldn't say that. You should try mustakettu85's script in wancow's thread. I would even dare say that with the script, bounceGI renders faster than pure indirect light mode of UE2.Well I can't say who told me but it was from high and that GI script isn't UE2 GI. :) I should give it a try one of these days.
The proper add-ons is a good point. I don't have an unlimited budget (who does?) so expense is a big issue for me. However, I have a couple of PC+ coupons until my membership runs out in about a week so any advice on some "essentials" would be good. I have no commercial shaders other than the AoA toon shaders (Visual and Manga) and a very few (and old) lighting sets.
So, Photo Studio Lights? Ubersurface2? Amazing Skins for G2F? What do you think?
I would say the only thing you really need is UberSurface2. As I noted on the previous thread, that's probably the most versatile shader available for DS that comes with all the bells and whistles you need. Uber Area lights and UE2 comes bundled with DS and they work quite well once you understand how to work with them properly.
I'll second Uber Surface 2 and with wowie tips I am getting better results on all sorts of surfaces.
Thanks. And maybe someday you'll finish that tutorial and have the time to ask omnifreaker all sorts of questions. :)
It was things that you said about certain aspects of Uber Surface that made me realise I didn't know enough to put everything in plain English. Then I got PC issues lost a lot of data and my list of questions, New PC new Hard Drives ( 2 internal and 3 usb externals) and I am just starting to get back in to DS more these days for a number of reasons, tutorials being one of the major reasons. Should compile a new list really in wancow's thread. I still have Omni's email addy.
Well, if you need help figuring things out, let me know. I've learned some new things about refraction and fresnel of the shader the other day. IPR is really neat to see what all those dials do when used together.
Well, if you need help figuring things out, let me know. I've learned some new things about refraction and fresnel of the shader the other day. IPR is really neat to see what all those dials do when used together.
I was reminded about IPR yesterday and - this might sound odd - I actually preferred the IPR result more than the finished render. The other significant thing I learned today was the effect of using Gamma at 2.2 (as you can see in the images in my OP).
Thanks wowie I will probably take you up on that offer.
mable I have Gamma ON at 2,20 permanently now. It amazes me how low the lights need to be now with GC ON. My love for DS has returned in vengeance with 4.7 and IPR etc.
You know, I'd like to see which big studios are using "unbiased" renderers, particularly for scenes in big feature films. If I remember correctly, most studios are using *gasp* Renderman Pro Server, Vray, Mental Ray, Arnold for much of their work. I believe those falls under the category of 'biased' renderers.
As noted on the previous thread, please make the distinction between using physically based/plausible rendering and biased/unbiased.
.
Actually Vray, Arnold and Mental Ray are originally and mainly used as unbiased with options now for more biased rendering. I don't hear of animation and movie studios using these much also. Most studios probably use a biased version of a renderer set up to their specifications based on the look they want.
The main reason I want to use unbiased renderers is because I know they are calculating the light based on a math algorithm instead of how i "think" the light should look and act. Granted if the surfaces on the objects are not set up correctly, this can and will skew the lighting outcome, but at least i have less room to second guess my thoughts on how realistic I may think it looks which i did all the time with Poser firefly.
From the horse's mouth:
http://forum.vrayforc4d.com/index.php?threads/15196/
"if you use brbr, you are fully unbiased in the sense of the usual meaning of "unbiased" calculation.
at the same time in this mode you miss - like most unbiased systems - the deeper physical calculation vray normally has."
I think it means it's not physically accurate.
"if you use the chaosgroup universal setup (a special brlc setup), you are in many aspects unbiased in a sense of a PPT path tracer (this is not 100% unbiased but gradually unbiased-means the higher the settings the more unbiased, and it is a physical more correct render than pure brbr due the near unlimited light bounces."
I do like this tidbit:
what is biased?
"anything that interpolates at a certain point, that means not calculating every pixel to the bitter end, but introduce some intelligent "educated guessing" / "russian roulette" methods, multiple importance sampling, or light/ray/color mapping energy clamping(or subpixel mapping), "
So, any of those 'unbiased renderer that uses MIS and/or Russian roulette is in fact, actually biased.
So, what's the, "vs others," in the thread title? Do you want to compare some renders from other biased renderers to see how they compare or what is done to enhance the look/realism?
I am not suggesting a software pissing contest by any means. I'm just curious if that is what you want or if the title is just designed to get views (which is also cool)?
I think that in a purely literal sense/definition, it may be possible that no renderer is fully unbiased, or at least I have read articles that stated this, though they could have been wrong (see this article: http://3d.about.com/od/A-Guide-To-3D-Software/tp/Rendering-Terminology-Explained.htm).
The whole point with this statement in my first post:
Using a path tracer, be it unidirectional or bidirectional doesn't automatically mean you're unbiased. It just means you're employing more unbiased methods. Put it simply, it's having less bias and counting on more interactions/samples to further minimize bias until they're practically unnoticeable. Less bias is not the same as unbiased.
But biased/unbiased will still produce incorrect images if the materials are not setup correctly which is where physically based/plausible models comes in play. So you need both. My point is that BRDF material models isn't tied to whether or not a renderer is biased, 'unbiased' or truly, 100% unbiased.
Take any of those 'unbiased' renderer and setup your materials with Lambert and Phong and they will look incorrect.
This followed on from a discussion started in the Octane thread. I have been using Luxrender since I discovered it years ago but have recently realised that my workflow might be more suited to something that produces images in less time. Octane doesn't fit the bill for me because it is too expensive and there is no Mac plugin. I still use Reality 2.5 even though I bought Reality 4 because the latter has a bag full of bugs. I also have Luxus but am not practiced at getting the best out of it yet.
So that brought me back to 3Delight and I have to accept what people say when they claim that it can produce good results. I was convinced that 3Delight images were too unrealistic (plastic people, etc.) but I'm slowly learning ways to achieve better results. So that was the purpose of this thread. It just so happens that it is concentrating on 3Delight so maybe the subject title doesn't reflect the content, but I am appreciating the input.
I am not wishing to offend anyone by talking about images looking like plastic. I wish I could think of a word that better describes why I consider them to look unnatural. It may well be my own subjective take. I spent an hour last night on Deviant Art looking at the 3Delight group gallery and still, the vast majority of those images look wrong to me. Even the examples Wowie posted on the first page of this thread look wrong to me. The hair does look like plastic as does the skin. Sorry, Wowie - I know you are an expert and I'm an unskilled hobbyist but I'm describing what I see. You may well see perfection. Perhaps I can get the softer images I require just by keeping the specular/gloss levels down?
No offense there. I do think you can get some great looks out of biased renderers though.
This is a Carrara native render that uses partial GI, meaning it is lit with what we Carraraists call Skylight. It allows us to light a scene with hdris, colors, color gradients or plain images. It treats them all like IBLs. I say partial, because it does not calculate indirect light bounces.
I've long suspected that Carrara is good for renders but, even though I have C8, I can't get along with it (I also have Poser 10 which I detest). I think it is the viewport in DAZ Studio that I am used to and I like the fact that the OpenGL render is pretty good for visualising the end product, at least compared to Poser.
Lighting is obviously key and someone suggested that I buy the Dreamlight training video: 3D Light Master. Again, it was out of my budget range but fortune smiled and it is on sale today at a much reduced price. So I bought it and am now working through the videos.
Hopefully, sometime in the next few days, Ubersurface2 will be on sale too (hint, hint, DAZ) :)
By the way, evilproducer, I think there is a good lesson in your signature.
Did a little playing around in DS with Photo Studio this evening and thought I'd post my results here. I'm not sure if this is the type/quality of render you are looking for, but it should help you to decide on if you want to pick up one of the Photo Studio products (of course the tutorial you got may give you everything you need). Done with Photo Studio (1) in 3Delight, rendered at 1,000x1,200 in about 35 min. (please click on the image to see it at full resolution).