Fiddling with Iray skin settings...

1818284868791

Comments

  • 8eos88eos8 Posts: 170
    Arnold C said:

    Would it be feasible to request of Daz to perhaps change the way the problematic inputs such as Glossy and Reflection are presented in the next version of DS? Simplifying it? There could easily be a conversion algorithm to maintain consistency between new and old scenes.

    I would really like to know why it was decided to implement these options as they have been presented in the DS version of Iray.

    I guess the main reason was to implement a more intuitive, and so more artist-friendly solution, given that the artist knows what he/she is doing. In the "irayubermatrial.mdl" it's mentioned that it would be "based on the IRay material for 3DS MAX", so they wouldn't be the only ones using some of Disney's methods.

    If you download the latest version of the 3ds Max Iray plugin - http://blog.irayrender.com/post/144194921486/iray-material-plugin-updated-for-3ds-max-2017 - there's pdf documentation included with it that shows (with pictures!) what the different layers do and how they're supposed to work together.

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 14,056
    8eos8 said:
    Arnold C said:

    Would it be feasible to request of Daz to perhaps change the way the problematic inputs such as Glossy and Reflection are presented in the next version of DS? Simplifying it? There could easily be a conversion algorithm to maintain consistency between new and old scenes.

    I would really like to know why it was decided to implement these options as they have been presented in the DS version of Iray.

    I guess the main reason was to implement a more intuitive, and so more artist-friendly solution, given that the artist knows what he/she is doing. In the "irayubermatrial.mdl" it's mentioned that it would be "based on the IRay material for 3DS MAX", so they wouldn't be the only ones using some of Disney's methods.

    If you download the latest version of the 3ds Max Iray plugin - http://blog.irayrender.com/post/144194921486/iray-material-plugin-updated-for-3ds-max-2017 - there's pdf documentation included with it that shows (with pictures!) what the different layers do and how they're supposed to work together.

    thanks

  • Arnold CArnold C Posts: 740
    edited September 2016
    8eos8 said:

    If you download the latest version of the 3ds Max Iray plugin - http://blog.irayrender.com/post/144194921486/iray-material-plugin-updated-for-3ds-max-2017 - there's pdf documentation included with it that shows (with pictures!) what the different layers do and how they're supposed to work together.

    Thank you, 8eos8. The content hasn't change much over the years, aside from changes to the "Release Notes", so you could even still go with the "Max 2013 (version 1.2)" manual (which IMO has a better chapter sorting. Description and sample pictures for chapters 6 and 7 are torn apart f.e. on the more recent manuals).

    Post edited by Arnold C on
  • 8eos88eos8 Posts: 170

    Yeah, I figured you had seen it already Arnold :) I was replying more to Rashad who was wondering about how the shader was designed...I quoted his post too but the forum hides it for some reason.

  • 8eos8 said:

    Yeah, I figured you had seen it already Arnold :) I was replying more to Rashad who was wondering about how the shader was designed...I quoted his post too but the forum hides it for some reason.

    Thanks. I'll check this out!

  • j cadej cade Posts: 1,826

    So I've been talking skin elswhere, but I thought I'd consolidate it here, especially since the one part has a fun demonstration of why translucency color should not be red in Iray (and even if we all already agreed, its nice to have a strong visual demonstration)

    Some fun experiments!

    My current skin settings (more or less) applied to a cube lit with a single light coming from the side. left is the surface of the skin right is what happens as you get "further in"

    Now the same settings but with a red in the translucency color slot  the transmitted color is actually bright green, but as long as the color was lighter than the translucency color the effect was absolutely microscopic. I did some experimenting on G3 and as far as I can tell if translucency color is darker and more saturated than transmitted color, it completely overpowers it, so once again onto my soapbox.

    and for fun the sss settings of victoria 7 (no maps obviously) Why is it green? there's nothing green anywhere in the material settings?

  • j cadej cade Posts: 1,826
    edited September 2016

    Aand my current SSS settings more or less

    Translucency weight: .5ish

    trans mode: scatter + transmit

    trans color: very light (sometimes orangy) yellow

    transmitted color (edit: trans reflectance tint One day I'll write this correctly): very very light blue basically white (blue ranges from blue to greenish, skin looks a bit to pink? make this greener to neutralize it a bit, think complementary colors)

    Thin walled: off (duh)

    Transmitted Color: Slightly dark red set this one before transmitted distance

    transmitted distance: 1.5-2.5. This roughly controls how see through the figure is. easy way to figure this one out is remove all lights but a bright spot light behind the figure and see how much of it glows red does the neck? chest cavity? You don't glow all bright red when lit from behind, lower the value till just things like the ear and hands are glowing but the arms and neck aren't

    Scattering Distance: less than 1? I switch this one around a lot depending on mood. higher values are softer but more likely to wash out bump, normal, and hd details. Higher values can also make the nose a little red the above image was .75 which is way higher than I normally go for non-toons generally I set ths around .15ish

    SSS amount: .8 to 2 ehhh... I'm a lot more guessy with this one, if you set it higher you can set the scattering distance higher without getting rudolph nose

    SSS direction .5 eh?

     

    yes there are a lot of ishes and ranges there, but I realy like tweaking to set the mood. Soft and painterly I can have softer sss at the expense of some detail, Harsh contrasty grungy photo? I can go a bit in the opposite direction. Not to mention I can tweek the the colors and change the whole feel of the material (its really easy to give a skin warm or cool undertones with just the tiniest of tweaks)

    Post edited by j cade on
  • Arnold CArnold C Posts: 740
    edited September 2016
    j cade said:

    trans color: very light (sometimes orangy) yellow

    transmitted color: very very light blue basically white (blue ranges from blue to greenish, skin looks a bit to pink? make this greener to neutralize it a bit, think complementary colors)

    Transmitted Color: Slightly dark red set this one before transmitted distance

    transmitted distance: 1.5-2.5. This roughly controls how see through the figure is. easy way to figure this one out is remove all lights but a bright spot light behind the figure and see how much of it glows red does the neck? chest cavity? You don't glow all bright red when lit from behind, lower the value till just things like the ear and hands are glowing but the arms and neck aren't

    Scattering Distance: less than 1? I switch this one around a lot depending on mood. higher values are softer but more likely to wash out bump, normal, and hd details. Higher values can also make the nose a little red the above image was .75 which is way higher than I normally go for non-toons generally I set ths around .15ish

    SSS amount: .8 to 2 ehhh... I'm a lot more guessy with this one, if you set it higher you can set the scattering distance higher without getting rudolph nose

    SSS direction .5 eh?

    You got Transmitted Color twice. I guess the first one should be rather SSS Reflectance Tint?

    I guess then you could simply use the (yellowish) SSS Reflectance Tint color from an actual DS 4.9 material preset, put that into Translucency Color, and the (blueish) [0.84, 1.00, 1.00] SSS Reflectance Tint color from a "Legacy" material preset.

    A "dark red" (maybe even containing a value of 1.00 on the "R" channel) for Transmitted Color would be IMO a not so good idea. Having 0.00 or 1.00 in one of the channels of the volume's color will effectively disable any distance based change for this channel; for large distances it will look red/blue/green and not change anymore if the thickness changes. That's why the early Gen 7's did look horribly red. They did put too much red into the Translucency Color, and then added even more by their fancy Pink Transmitted Color.

    Determining Transmitted Color is actually very easy: it's the skin tone. Use Photoshop or such, pick a RGB color value from the diffuse map, put that into Studio's Color Selector and put 1.00 into Transmitted Measurement Distance. Boom. Or, for simplicities sake, a color based on a measured average: Transmitted Measurement Distance: 1.00; Transmitted Color (R): 0.615847, (G): 0.283032, (B): 0.156186.

    Subsurface scattering currently isn't modeled correctly in the actual Iray version of the General and Public Release builds. I hope they change the UI for the Surface Tab on the next releases. Since Iray 2016.1 the SSS Amount can be determined in full color instead of the currently used greyscale. So we'd need a color input field instead of the slider there.

    I'm currently using Scattering Measurement Distance: 0.05 and SSS Amount: 0.83500, which corresponds to a (measured) scattering coefficient of 16.7 (for a wavelength at 700 nm). For a full color SSS Amount solution I need to have a look at the formula DAZ's Iray Uber uses to calculate the scattering coefficient.

    SSS Direction: 0.8 ("g" in scientific publiations). Although we're missing a reflective surface slightly inside a figure to have the light being sent back to the skin surface (what the fat cell layer named hypodermis does), a negative value doesn't work very well. It looks like light slightly touches the surface and being immediately sent back instead of going down a certain distance first and only then being sent back.

    Post edited by Arnold C on
  • j cadej cade Posts: 1,826
    Arnold C said:

    You got Transmitted Color twice. I guess the first one should be rather SSS Reflectance Tint?

    I guess then you cuold simply use the (yellowish) SSS Reflectance Tint color from an actual DS 4.9 material preset, put that into Translucency Color, and the (blueish) [0.84, 1.00, 1.00] SSS Reflectance Tint color from a "Legacy" material preset.

    A "dark red" (maybe even containing a value of 1.00 on the "R" channel) for Transmitted Color would be IMO a not so good idea. Having 0.00 or 1.00 in one of the channels of the volume's color will effectively disable any distance based change for this channel; for large distances it will look red/blue/green and not change anymore if the thickness changes. That's why the early Gen 7's did look horribly red. They did put too much red into the Translucency Color, and then added even more by their fancy Pink Transmitted Color.

    Determining Transmitted Color is actually very easy: it's the skin tone. Use Photoshop or such, pick a RGB color value from the diffuse map, put that into Studio's Color Selector and put 1.00 into Transmitted Measurement Distance. Boom. Or, for simplicities sake, a color based on a measured average: Transmitted Measurement Distance: 1.00; Transmitted Color (R): 0.615847, (G): 0.283032, (B): 0.156186.

    Subsurface scattering currently isn't modeled correctly in the actual Iray version of the General and Public Release builds. I hope they change the UI for the Surface Tab on the next releases. Since Iray 2016.1 the SSS Amount can be determined in full color instead of the currently used greyscale. So we'd need a color input field instead of the slider there.

    I'm currently using Scattering Measurement Distance: 0.05 and SSS Amount: 0.83500, which corresponds to a (measured) scattering coefficient of 16.7 (for a wavelength at 700 nm). For a full color SSS Amount solution I need to have a look at the formula DAZ's Iray Uber uses to calculate the scattering coefficient.

    SSS Direction: 0.8 ("g" in scientific publiations). Although we're missing a reflective surface slightly inside a figure to have the light being sent back to the skin surface (what the fat cell layer named hypodermis does), a negative value doesn't work very well. It looks like light slightly touches the surface and being immediately sent back instead of going down a certain distance first and only then being sent back.

    Yep first one should be reflectance tint. And yeah my red doesn't have full saturation. I think I actually posted some tests somewhere in this thread about that. Given some of my expiriments a lighter color and a shorter transmitted distance can be analagous to a lighter transmitted color and smaller distance I find my setup more personally intuitive to tweak, but there are definitely other ways to set it up and get nigh identical results

    And I think my test on the cubes is a better explanation for why a lot of skins look dark and too red. Reddish colors in translucency color is terrible IMO. Just terrible.

  • j cadej cade Posts: 1,826

    Another fun test about Transmitted Distance and Color

    In the 2 images below one has a Transmitted distance of 10 and the other 4.18 yet they look nigh identical. That is because the one with the T.Distance of 10 has just off full blue (RGB 0/0/253 so there's no bugging out) in its Tranmitted color slot, whereas the image with the T.dist. of 4.18 has its T. Color set to a lighter blue RGB 90/90/253.

    They don't match perfectly but its pretty close for just some quick fiddling by eye.

     

    MDist4.1.jpg
    400 x 400 - 22K
    MDist10.jpg
    400 x 400 - 22K
  • Arnold CArnold C Posts: 740
    edited September 2016

     

    j cade said:

    Yep first one should be reflectance tint. And yeah my red doesn't have full saturation. I think I actually posted some tests somewhere in this thread about that. Given some of my expiriments a lighter color and a shorter transmitted distance can be analagous to a lighter transmitted color and smaller distance I find my setup more personally intuitive to tweak, but there are definitely other ways to set it up and get nigh identical results

    And I think my test on the cubes is a better explanation for why a lot of skins look dark and too red. Reddish colors in translucency color is terrible IMO. Just terrible.

    Yeah, I guess you're talking about this one. Good tip.

    Yep, we're in business. smiley A while ago I made up a calculation sheet to help get the appropriate color values for a given coefficient using the formulas found in DAZ's "irayubermaterial.mdl". When lowering the distance of measurement (B) you'll get a lighter color, and when raising it (C) you'll get a darker one. The larger it is, the more the color will turn towards a dark, reddish-brown. Still, I find it easier just to pick the skin tone and go with a distance of 1.00. That way you'll always be on the safe side, and have less to test and tweak.

    Agreed, using reddish translucency colors is a verybad idea.

    They should IMO pass a law, sentence from 1 to 5 years f.e, for that. The same for "putting something ridiculous into Glossy Color on a dielectric"... laughcheeky

    A.jpg
    900 x 460 - 189K
    B.jpg
    900 x 460 - 189K
    C.jpg
    900 x 460 - 189K
    Post edited by Arnold C on
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,250

    I would love the ability to have transmitted and/or SSS that was something other than a linear gradient. Man.

     

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,250

    Here's a comparison. My settings (tweaked a bit) on left vs standard Nevio -> Iray skin converter.

    Using Scatter & Transmit tends to make skin look darker/more tan. Some people have complained, but really them's the breaks with realism and skin; it shouldn't be hard to desaturate/devibrance the skins in image editor and lighten them up if that's what you want.

    My settings:

    .5 translucency white, just pure white translucency color.

    Transmitted distance .08

    Transmitted color bright red (237 27 27)

    SSS distance .1

    SSS amount .1

    SSS direction .5

    Bumping up transmitted distance a little makes the skin more translucent. I've found little point in changing translucency color, at least with this skin. SSS reflectance tint is nice, but it'll end up darkening the skin a little more. But good for shifting surface tone away from red, if you need that.

    comparison.png
    1080 x 1080 - 2M
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,250

    Of course, a nice simple approach, IMO:

    Take the standard Iray skin converter result.

    Remove top coat. Remove any glossy color/weight maps, make weight 1, color white. Make most skin Reflectivity .3, Roughness .7 (adjust up/down for wetness), lips Reflectivity .4/Roughness .5 (again, adjust depending on how wet you want lips)

    Remove any translucency weight maps, but make sure translucency color maps are diffuse maps (or sss maps if the skin has them).

    Switch Base Color Effect to Scatter & Transmit.

    Set SSS Reflectance Tint to a very light blue (to taste)

    Increase SSS Amount to 1

    Change SSS Direction to .5

    And there you go; why translucency light pink? Because, again, transmitted color multiplies in. If the translucency color is too saturated/dark, there's no 'room' for it to grade into the transmitted color.

    In the following image, the left figure is Nevio converted to Iray with standard skin converter. The right figure is the same thing, but with changes I listed. Personally, I really like the result.

     

    comparison2.png
    1080 x 1080 - 1M
  • SorelSorel Posts: 1,287
    That looks pretty good Will
  • JimbowJimbow Posts: 556

    Looks great Will!

  • evilded777evilded777 Posts: 2,313
    j cade said:

    Aand my current SSS settings more or less

    Translucency weight: .5ish

    trans mode: scatter + transmit

    trans color (edit: trans reflectance tint): very light (sometimes orangy) yellow

    transmitted color: very very light blue basically white (blue ranges from blue to greenish, skin looks a bit to pink? make this greener to neutralize it a bit, think complementary colors)

    Thin walled: off (duh)

    Transmitted Color: Slightly dark red set this one before transmitted distance

    transmitted distance: 1.5-2.5. This roughly controls how see through the figure is. easy way to figure this one out is remove all lights but a bright spot light behind the figure and see how much of it glows red does the neck? chest cavity? You don't glow all bright red when lit from behind, lower the value till just things like the ear and hands are glowing but the arms and neck aren't

    Scattering Distance: less than 1? I switch this one around a lot depending on mood. higher values are softer but more likely to wash out bump, normal, and hd details. Higher values can also make the nose a little red the above image was .75 which is way higher than I normally go for non-toons generally I set ths around .15ish

    SSS amount: .8 to 2 ehhh... I'm a lot more guessy with this one, if you set it higher you can set the scattering distance higher without getting rudolph nose

    SSS direction .5 eh?

     

    yes there are a lot of ishes and ranges there, but I realy like tweaking to set the mood. Soft and painterly I can have softer sss at the expense of some detail, Harsh contrasty grungy photo? I can go a bit in the opposite direction. Not to mention I can tweek the the colors and change the whole feel of the material (its really easy to give a skin warm or cool undertones with just the tiniest of tweaks)

    So... you are making the Translucency color a white-blue and using this to adjust tint?

    With the sorta suggested yellowish SSS Reflectance Tint?

    I'll have to try that

  • j cadej cade Posts: 1,826
    j cade said:

    Aand my current SSS settings more or less

    Translucency weight: .5ish

    trans mode: scatter + transmit

    trans color (edit: trans reflectance tint I am silly, and transcolor is right): very light (sometimes orangy) yellow

    transmitted color (this one is actually supposed to be reflectence tint): very very light blue basically white (blue ranges from blue to greenish, skin looks a bit to pink? make this greener to neutralize it a bit, think complementary colors)

    Thin walled: off (duh)

    Transmitted Color: Slightly dark red set this one before transmitted distance

    transmitted distance: 1.5-2.5. This roughly controls how see through the figure is. easy way to figure this one out is remove all lights but a bright spot light behind the figure and see how much of it glows red does the neck? chest cavity? You don't glow all bright red when lit from behind, lower the value till just things like the ear and hands are glowing but the arms and neck aren't

    Scattering Distance: less than 1? I switch this one around a lot depending on mood. higher values are softer but more likely to wash out bump, normal, and hd details. Higher values can also make the nose a little red the above image was .75 which is way higher than I normally go for non-toons generally I set ths around .15ish

    SSS amount: .8 to 2 ehhh... I'm a lot more guessy with this one, if you set it higher you can set the scattering distance higher without getting rudolph nose

    SSS direction .5 eh?

     

    yes there are a lot of ishes and ranges there, but I realy like tweaking to set the mood. Soft and painterly I can have softer sss at the expense of some detail, Harsh contrasty grungy photo? I can go a bit in the opposite direction. Not to mention I can tweek the the colors and change the whole feel of the material (its really easy to give a skin warm or cool undertones with just the tiniest of tweaks)

    So... you are making the Translucency color a white-blue and using this to adjust tint?

    With the sorta suggested yellowish SSS Reflectance Tint?

    I'll have to try that

    I stuck it the wrong way... again :( Translucency color yellowish, reflectance tint blueish. Although, when I use a pre-gen3 texture with the diffuse doubled in translucency color, setting the translucency colorblueish can cancel out some of the too strong redness that would otherwise occur.

  • Arnold CArnold C Posts: 740
    edited September 2016

    Experimenting... Test Object: Victoria 7 HD. (Involuntarily. But still "alive"). laugh

    Putting in the recent SSS Reflectance Tint color (RGB 255-240-215) into Translucency Color and using the "Legacy" SSS Reflectance Tint color (RGB 236-255-255) looks like the translucence will blow both Base and transmission (#0). As side effect I discovered that a too bright Translucency Color has a large impact on render times: Total Rendering Time: 15 minutes 30.32 seconds; 268 iterations, 73.433s init, 845.055s render. For the default material (#1): Total Rendering Time: 5 minutes 13.81 seconds; 93 iterations, 69.890s init, 231.981s render. Almost tripled.

    Putting in my favored Transmitted Color solution (picked from diffuse map (RGB 196-155-132) with Transmitted Measurement Distance: 1.00, Scattering Measurement Distance: 0.05 and SSS Amount: 0.835) into the default Victoria 7 material results only in a very subtle change (#2), but with a Total Rendering Time: 4 minutes 10.37 seconds; 73 iterations, 65.715s init, 172.699s render, around 20% less time needed to complete.

    Looking for a more "physicallly based" solution I got to the idea to try a new Translucency Color (RGB 217-133-114) based on in vivo (natural samples containing blood etc.) measurements for the Transmitted Color of the epidermis (#4). Total Rendering Time: 6 minutes 9.75 seconds; 101 iterations, 66.633s init, 291.309s render.

    If you prefer a skin that looks more pale, you can use the "Legacy" SSS Reflectance Tint color value (RGB 236-255-255) (#5). Total Rendering Time: 7 minutes 28.20 seconds; 124 iterations, 72.496s init, 363.942s render.

    I found a very interesting article about skin shading: A Spectral BSSRDF for Shading Human Skin by Craig Donner and Henrik Wann Jensen (the link to the PDF is at the bottom left). The 10 pages describing nicely where the color of our skin comes from.

    #0 V7 SSS RT swapped.jpg
    1080 x 1620 - 548K
    #1 V7 Default.jpg
    1080 x 1620 - 512K
    #2 V7 New SSS.jpg
    1080 x 1620 - 519K
    #4 V7 New Translucency and SSS with neutral SSS ReflTint.jpg
    1080 x 1620 - 549K
    #5 V7 New Translucency and SSS with Legacy SSS ReflTint.jpg
    1080 x 1620 - 543K
    Post edited by Arnold C on
  • RAMWolffRAMWolff Posts: 9,598

    Thanks for the continued tips Arnold. 

     

    I did test out your info and sure enough, made no sense.  Removing the maps sped up the render.  I did activate the Diffuse Overlay and that sped things up a bit more and gave her the tone I wanted so not sure if that's right or not but happier with the results.  I have no desire to desaturate my maps I worked so hard on so this seems to be a way around that....

     

    First is the Transmitted maps example, just imagine without the transmitted maps, it's the same...

    Second is with the Diffuse Overlay activated with a lightly tanned square color in the map, Color is pure white so the map is doing all the work...

     

    Bruna Skin with Transmitted Maps.jpg
    694 x 859 - 166K
    Bruna Skin without Transmitted + Diffuse Overlay.jpg
    686 x 858 - 163K
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited September 2016

    Teeth...revisited.

    Here's a WIP on teeth...the settings are base off of Arnold C's settings here...

    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/1277576/#Comment_1277576

    Except I made a new base map and created all the other maps to go with it.  And I broke down and did displacement, too.

    This is before adding details for the molars.

    Not as tight a shot, but with molar details...

    And a bit more normal expression (not rendered very much)

    teeth01.png
    640 x 640 - 688K
    teeth02.png
    640 x 640 - 350K
    teeth03.png
    640 x 640 - 634K
    Post edited by mjc1016 on
  • RAMWolffRAMWolff Posts: 9,598

    Looks great!

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 14,056
    mjc1016 said:

    Teeth...revisited.

    Here's a WIP on teeth...the settings are base off of Arnold C's settings here...

    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/1277576/#Comment_1277576

    Except I made a new base map and created all the other maps to go with it.  And I broke down and did displacement, too.

    This is before adding details for the molars.

    Not as tight a shot, but with molar details...

    And a bit more normal expression (not rendered very much)

    They look really good color wise but I think think the groove pattern makes it look like they have alot of plaque instead of the typical teeth grooves. Well to me at least. Aside from that close up though it isn't noticable.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited September 2016
     

    They look really good color wise but I think think the groove pattern makes it look like they have alot of plaque instead of the typical teeth grooves. Well to me at least. Aside from that close up though it isn't noticable.

    That's part of the problem...without it being a bit 'overdone' on the closeup, there is nothing there when pulled out a bit.  The size/area don't really allow for a 'one setting fits all camera angles'.   To have anything show up in a shot with any distance, the closeups will look like 10 miles of bad road.  I've been playing with this a lot today and dialing back the bump/displacement/normals works pretty well for a closeup.  I just don't have any shots of a 'subtle' closeup.  When it's more subtle, it doesn't look like a trip to the hygenist is in order.

    Another thing...these settings are very responsive to various lights.   All the shots are using the same HDRI, but in others, they look like they belong...no 'tweaking'.  I'll see if I can get a good one done overnight.

    Post edited by mjc1016 on
  • JimbowJimbow Posts: 556
    edited September 2016
    mjc1016 said:
    there is nothing there when pulled out a bit.

    I think that's how it's supposed to be, isn't it? Looks great, though. Have you tried changing the Round Corners radius to 0.001 for the teeth and mouth to get a bit of moisture sitting between them?

    Post edited by Jimbow on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    Jimbow said:
    mjc1016 said:
    there is nothing there when pulled out a bit.

    I think that's how it's supposed to be, isn't it? Looks great, though. Have you tried changing the Round Corners radius to 0.001 for the teeth and mouth to get a bit of moisture sitting between them?

    On the list....

    The problem with teeth and other small things is that the 'nothing there' is really nothing...just as smooth as without any details only a short distance out.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited September 2016

    Here's another, different light...with the rounded corners change.  I probably should have pulled in a bit tighter on her mouth, but I'm doing this character for something else, so I was trying to kill two birds with one render...

    allenart6.jpg
    800 x 1000 - 433K
    Post edited by mjc1016 on
  • FishtalesFishtales Posts: 5,040
    mjc1016 said:

    Here's another, different light...with the rounded corners change.  I probably should have pulled in a bit tighter on her mouth, but I'm doing this character for something else, so I was trying to kill two birds with one render...

     

    You wont believe how close she looks to my granddaughter surprise

  • bwise1701bwise1701 Posts: 216

    Could someone tell me what character / texture set this image uses?

    Thanks

     

    fred9803 said:

     

     

    This one is G3F with V4 skin. [Click to enlarge]

    Beautiful! That looks great! I love her freckles. She could use a bit more of a slightly bumpy texture as it looks a bit too smooth, imo. Are you using a bump map and normal map? 

     

  • bwise1701bwise1701 Posts: 216
    edited October 2016

    Could someone tell me what character / texture set this image uses?

    Thanks

    Post edited by bwise1701 on
Sign In or Register to comment.