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.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
my comment was directed at marble, sorry. When I started typing your comment was not there yet
I see what you mean about the hair. I thought I had turned the shadows back on for the hair - I'll check it again, and the lights.
I just think the Dimension Theory render is a really good example of how 3Delight can do realism - I wouldn't have believed that was a 3Delight render a few days ago.
Sorry - my bad spelling ...
http://www.daz3d.com/fw-jennie-hd-for-belle-6
Thanks.
And we all blow it on the spelling, every now and then.
No problem. I wasn't sure. Cross posting is fun! ;-)
As one recruitment poster once said, "Aim High" :)
The workflow explained: http://blog.naver.com/jin0ppa/138491926
That's real computer art - from scratch. The hair is also very realistic - I don't have LAMH but I do have Garibaldi but I'd be surprised if either of them could produce that level of realism.
I'm a real defender of 3Delight, yet I recognize with no doubt that it is much more harder and longer to obtain realistic results than in other software such as octane and luxrender.
Nevertheless, if the rights lights and material inputs, you can reach I find very good results with pretty fast render times too. But it asks for a basic effort on lights and materials.
I post here for instance 5 renders I made 100% on 3Delight, trying to optimize light/materials.
Lovely. Very impressive renders.
May I ask your opinion? What is the main reason for using 3Delight over Luxrender (I don't have, nor can I afford, Octane)? Is it purely render times? If so, then once multiple lights with raytracing, etc., have been added, is that render time still so much quicker than Luxrender?
From my point of view, since looking again at 3Delight, I am impressed by the quality I'm already getting after discussions here and after reading a few tutorials. The renders are still quicker than those I normally do with Reality but, so far, I've only done single characters with little clothing. The hair seems to be a real speed killer, even with raytracing turned off for the hair. My scenes normally have at least two characters with hair so I'm suspecting the render times will be getting closer to Luxrender times.
Lastly, I have discovered with Reality 4 (and Luxus) that SSS requires much longer to "clean up" (remove bright spots or red blotches) and this was the main factor that led me to looking again at 3Delight. However, I'm getting really confused with all the shaders (Ubersurface2 and AoA, etc.) as well as the shader settings included on the newer characters. Then there are add-on products that look really interesting (Skin Builder, for example) but do these only add to that confusion?
[EDIT] One further question for all: does anyone use Multi-pass rendering - i.e. rendering each light separately and then placing each in a Photoshop (or Gimp) layer?
I think it's already been done since DAZ Studio version 1. My opinion is that the current way of doing it is rather clunky and prone to errors when something changes (ie. like in the current build where DAZ3D changed the way transparency is handled). 3delight already has AOV (arbitrary output variables) capabilities, but I don't think it's implemented yet by DAZ. If they do implement it, I'd rather have them allow OpenEXR output rather than outputting to .png or .tiff.
OpenEXR has native support for layers and you can pretty much use a layer for anything (specular, diffuse, shadows, reflections, refractions, even per object).
Actually, that's not the case at all. It's primarily rendering any surface with opacity enabled combined with occlusion. Hair typically falls into this category. Some hair have a lot of strands and layers and can push render times to hours just for the hair alone.
There are some things you can do to minimize the hit:
1. Use less complex hair props.
2. Don't use raytracing lights
3. Don't use occlusion.
However, most of the times you simply can't avoid using those things. But there are some other tricks you can employ:
1. Render offending surfaces with different samples/shading rate..
This can be done via the lights ala AoA's Lights that comes with flagging surfaces and employ different samples for flagged surfaces. You can also use UberSurface/UberSurface2 occlusion shading rate override. I generally set shading rate to 128 for hair. Doing it both ways is redundant so just pick one.
2. Use progressive rendering, which employs ray tracing rather than the default REYES hider. The ray tracing hider renders complex objects with lots of geometry faster (and I mean a LOT faster). Another upside to using the ray tracing hider is that it is indifferent to shading rate. With default REYES hider, people generally have to lower shading rate to less than 1 to bring out fine details. That's not the case with the ray tracing hider, since by default its already sampling at sub pixel levels.
I believe there's some products that won't work correctly with the raytracing hider. If I'm not mistaken, AoA's Atmospheric Cameras is one of those and I think there's an update.
Thanks again.
I had come across AoA's cameras already and am tempted to buy them. Pity I missed them when they were on sale recently but I might wait for the next sale.
I'm a bit lost again with the technical details of your second point but that just means further reading to find out what's involved with progressive rendering.
Personally I use 3Delight for several reasons :
1. because I am a content creator for DAZ Studio (I'm V3Digitimes, the creator of Amazing Skins),
2. because it is more simple (less steps) to stay in DAZ Studio rather than using external render
3. because it is a very good render engine
Yet I have used luxrender and octane too, because this is a part my work to know and practice everything around DAZ Studio. They are both excellent render engines, fast, efficient and is astounding results.
The render speed is a factor, not the key factor, but an important one. If a render takes hours, it is no more pleasant to work. For many users, rendering is either a job, or a pleasure, and in both cases, renders should be fast enough to maintain pleasure or productivity (for the professionals).
I don't think that the fact of having different shaders or a skin builder (which is a map builder, but not a shader) available for character rendering add to the confusion. They all have their unique specificities : HSS is the historical skin shader adding SSS, AoA SSS has a different approach with introduction of some noises, separate velvet and so on, and Amazing Skins has a totally different approach aiming at flexibility and efficiency (having no freeze at start, render speed independent from the mesh resolution, color tweaking of the diffuse maps and much more) reaching the best compromise I could between speed, realism, flexibility and taking into account industry standards. Skin builder will base on several predefined maps to mix them in order to reach a new set of map, a kind of integrated clever LIE, but after that, you can place the shader you want above them.
This is a luck to have so many render possibilities and the solution you prefer is only a matter of taste.
Personally I do not use multipass often, only when I really don't manage to reach the right light set I feel like having. But I have an army of lights sets already developed allowing me to avoid it.
Use the settings below for hair or eyebrows (anything with opacity maps, really) surfaces.
Then make sure you have 'Progressive Rendering' set to 'On' in the Render options. By default, IPR already uses this.
I agree about render times spoiling the fun. I can tolerate an hour, even two, but the 12 hours or more that some scenes take is just not for me. I'm a hobbyist not a pro.
I mentioned Skin Builder because it is 70% off today and I hate to miss a bargain if it will be useful to me. I'll probably have to wait for another sale for your product too - my state pension only goes so far.
I'm still experimenting with AoA and Ubersurface2 shaders and finding the huge number of parameters very daunting, even after tutorials.
Use the settings below for hair or eyebrows (anything with opacity maps, really) surfaces.
Then make sure you have 'Progressive Rendering' set to 'On' in the Render options. By default, IPR already uses this.
Thanks - I will try that. I've also spotted a YouTube video on progressive renders which I'm about to watch.
Lol! Yes there is a lot of parameters, but skins are particular materials :)
If some day you decide for Amazing Skins, you can just PM me, I'll send you the links to video demo showing what the important parameters are and what they do in detail, and the link to the pdf if you prefer having some paper support!
Have a nice sunday (my renders are over, I have to work now!)
Lol! Yes there is a lot of parameters, but skins are particular materials :)
If some day you decide for Amazing Skins, you can just PM me, I'll send you the links to video demo showing what the important parameters are and what they do in detail, and the link to the pdf if you prefer having some paper support!
Have a nice sunday (my renders are over, I have to work now!)
Thanks for your help and yes, I'll keep watching the sales for your Amazing Skins.
Be careful, though, apparently some of his products don't work in DS4.7. Specifically the cameras and his lights' flagging feature.
And it doesn't seem like there is a fix on the way.
Be careful, though, apparently some of his products don't work in DS4.7. Specifically the cameras and his lights' flagging feature.
And it doesn't seem like there is a fix on the way.
Thanks. The feature I was mainly interested in was this option to disable the time-hogging objects in the scene. If there are other ways of doing that then I avoid spending.
marble, I was fulling intending on using Octane and LuxRender a few years ago, but finding that the raytrace speed was increased substantially by DNA with 3Delight and DAZ was implementing the newer versions more quickly, I decided to focus again on DAZ Studio with 3Delight, especially with the delays in the plugin for Octane. Then I started coming across remarkably good realistic renders by users of Softimage rendered in 3Delight and learned it wasn't so much DAZ Studio or 3Delight were the problems, rather it was lighting, materials/shaders and lack of knowledge of the users. DimensionTheory was making progress, as you found, and then wowie, and Kettu with her script talent, completely hauled me away from thinking of using Octane. Besides, the more you add to Octane, the slower it becomes, and you require much more expensive Tesla cards if you want to increase speed to do real animation and not just tests. LuxRender is still too slow for animation and the available GPU options for it aren't quite there yet.
3Delight has been a production render engine at many studios for some time. It works.DAZ had limited access to some of the features, but Omnifreaker and others have opened up some of those features with their plugins. Our usage is more robust than it used to be.
wowie's tweaked SSS skin shaders in the first Photo Studio Kit http://www.daz3d.com/photo-studio-kit really worked well for me. BTW, you'll need this for it to work http://www.daz3d.com/ubersurface2-layered-shader-for-daz-studio (and the proper versions of the various V6 and M6 HD add ons used - the textures) It's what I used in those two Vampire Huntress renders. http://www.daz3d.com/mec4d-the-vampire-huntress-for-genesis-2-female-s Mec4D used a program out of Scandinavia to make much more realistic textures for that set I believe. I have really good render times and experimenting with lights and pre-rendered backgrounds will bring my render times down some more. I've learned more about what can be done without having to change things, and instead of spending time optimizing shaders for another program, I can work on composition and lighting now that it makes more sense to me.
I haven't used wowie's second set yet, but it may allow the things you are looking for a more diffused look.
I'm starting to find that you are right about the quality that is possible from 3Delight. The more I play with it, the better results I am getting. I do think there is some confusion about the best shaders, lights, etc. For example, in another thread I was advised to stick with the AoA SSS shaders that are used with most of the G2F characters rather than try to set up Ubersurface2. I don't do many close-ups so I wonder whether the choice between the two is important.
And again, in the Dreamlight video tutorial I bought, he insists on a 7-point light setup - I hate to think how long that would take to render. Perhaps that's why he recommends cutting render times by Multi-pass rendering (a light at a time) and bringing it all together in Photoshop. I'm wary to spend much more cash on more lights, shaders, etc., because I'm a long way yet from understanding what I need. I bought Ubersurface2 but I'm getting much better results with the default AoA_subsurface shaders that come with the character. That's because I don't really know what I'm doing yet.
It is like novice compared to a chef. You can give them both exactly the same ingredients as required by the recipe but the chef will produce something tasty while the novice will most likely end up with some awful gloop.
I believe AoA's Subsurface Shader is free and you mentioned earlier that you've gotten UberSurface2. AoA's shader is generally easier to understand for novice users, since he took the time to make a 'proper' manual and there's even a video explaining the basics.
UberSurface2 is a complex beast and there's really no good documentation on the features and how you're supposed to use them. I think that's the reason why some wouldn't recommend buying or using it. As I noted to Szark, I'm still discovering some new things about it (how the 1st channel fresnel affects refraction, regardless of you're using specular/reflection or not),
Since you've got them both, I suggest playing with them at see what all those features do. It should be much easier now with IPR to get an understanding of what changes when you increase/decrease values. The only exception is subsurface scattering - you will need to restart the IPR render to see the changes.
Materials setup is a complex topic unto itself and depends much on the light setup plus whether or not they're using gamma correction. My own setup was based on research, plus a lot of trials and errors (well documented throughout wancow's thread)..
I found AOA's SSS Shader base a PITA when it comes to Scatter and Absorption colour being split in to RGB channels. I find Uber Surface 2 so much easier in that regard.
I've hit a bit of an issue with render settings.
I have ben setting my Gamma Correction ON and the value at 2.2. This works well for most characters but I have just loaded one called Joanie for G2F and she looks low-contrast and too light - like she's behind a slightly frosted glass. I turn the gamma back to 1.0 and she looks fine.
Is there a way to have 2 different gamma settings in one scene? Or, failing that, what else can I do to bring up the contrast and colour saturation just for her?
[EDIT] Looking at some other threads, some are saying that Gamma is better corrected in postwork. Anyone agree?
This is an example of what I'm talking about. The texture or the MATs have simply been made without gamma correction in mind. You can either fiddle with the image gamma settings (via the Image Editor - found on top of the field that shows up when you want to load a texture), or changed the strength/color till it looks the same when rendered without gamma correction.
Generally, I find it better to render at gamma 2.2 because that's what your monitor's output is. The link below should explain why
http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_education/linear_non_linear_visual_difference/linear_non_linear_visual_difference.htm
http://www.vfxwizard.com/tutorials/gamma-correction-for-linear-workflow.html
http://filmicgames.com/archives/299
https://maddieman.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/gamma-correction-and-linear-colour-space-simplified/
Is the Image Editor the same thing as the Layered Image Editor?
No. You can accces it once you have an image inserted into the color slot.
No. You can accces it once you have an image inserted into the color slot.
Well, there's another thing I didn't know about. :)
I started thinking about some of the questions asked here in this thread, mainly are we using the 'correct' light / shaders. So I devise a little test scene. Below is a very simple scene of a diffuse sphere lit by one distant light and one ambient light. I've set the intensities so they're half the strength needed to make the part of the sphere facing the light pure white. So, when we enabled both lights, we only needed to divide the intensity value by 2 (50%) to make sure they're equally lighting the sphere
Even when you enable gamma correction and choose the right gamma, you can still have incorrect results if you setup your materials incorrectly. Below are two renders. WIth an ambient light and a distant light both shining light equally strong, we should be seeing color values of 50% in the dark areas as in the 1st render. But most people will generally see the 2nd render.
Just in case anybody is wondering, 50% in gamma space means an RGB value of 187,187,187 (and not 128,128,128).
The renders above were made with UE2 set to AO mode with soft shadows and the sphere is using UberSurface with diffuse roughness set to 0. Could it be the shaders? The render below is taken with the DAZ default shader. The roughness is of course different, but the values are roughly similar to the first render. The dark area has the same brightness levels.
How Do I Look?
This is my first full scene since I started experimenting with 3Delight again. Just a couple of my dialled-in characters dropped into a room. I spent the afternoon playing with lights and shading options. The render took about 15 minutes for 1600x1280. In Luxrender it would have taken about 3 hours on my Mac.
I still think it looks a bit cartoonish so there is lots of room for improvement but, for my purposes, I'm getting closer to what I need. Again, I'm not looking for perfection - just some approximation of realism and figures that don't look like cardboard cut-outs stuck on a flat background image.
Click for full size...