More Non-photorealisitic Renders (NPR II)
This discussion has been closed.
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
Nice work.
Funny thing, I have a Deckard renderer in Unity, but have not guessed that it is related to Blade Runner character.
Now, that we have official support from Daz3D to Unity - https://www.daz3d.com/daz-to-unity-bridge
I spend more time experimenting with it.
Below are some NPR renders of https://www.daz3d.com/ahmunet-for-genesis-8-female
made in Unity.
Baby Yoda
@tkdrobert Dawwww So cute! :D
Boba Fett with color pencils effect
Playing around with a samurai cat...
Millawa 8 "tooned". lol I mixed in some Bebe High and Star 2.0 (transferred to G8F).
Aiko Toon and Toonimal Puppy.
Aiko Toon. Haven't seen that one in a while!
Yeah, sadly Daz pulled it from the store last year. But (thankfully) 3D Universe has made it available still through them: https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/4594656/#Comment_4594656
I'm surprsed Daz hasn't just shut down all older figures, just to shove Genesis 8 down everyone's throats yet.
I don't know why you would say that. Daz has never done it.
hi NPR citizens
After having headache try to understand and learning Blender`s Freestyle , I think for now I`ll be stick with DAZ Outline render features.
It maybe not advance or powerful as Freestyle but I think I can find trick to suit my need , especially since I`m mostly tend to tinkering the outcome with Photosop and Affinity Designer
Here some simple Render and postwork in Photoshop . I`ll share the PSD file ih Gdrive if anyone interest to further enhance this simple images
EDIT L It seems My monitor not quite right and all my images looked wash out . Sorry guys
Christmas Eve Night in Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia...
A snowman and Christmas tree near the Lighthouse are ready for Christmas morning in Peggys' Cove, Nova Scotia.
A digital illustration I created for Christmas 2020 using Blender 2.92 (model the lighthouse), 3D Coat 4.9 (texture lighthouse), snowman, Christmas tree, fishing boat & houses are 3D props I have obtained over the years. Rendered in Vue Creator 1.5 with postwork using Photoshop 2021 CC & Topaz Studio 2.
This one I had some fun with. I reduced the colors to the palatte you would find on a Commodore 64, and even went so far as to stretch the pixel aspect to a similar ratio. Because to do colorful graphics, the C64 would stretch the pixels horizontally. I didn't stretch them to quite the 1:2 ratio however, as I didn't want the pic looking too stretched.
Personally I would've squished the image by half and then stretched it. That way you get the double width pixels while still retaining the general proportions.
I definitely get the retro vibe, but not 100% sure about that shade of purple from the old C64 (I recently played with an online emulator, and it was fun to go back and look at the stuff we used do on that computer). This definitely is a winner, though. Can you replicate the look for a multi-panel comic?
Having fun with Filament - Daz Outline (script) render and Photoshop
I agree with @Diva explanation about camera and Pose . I do believe thats because people already familliar with what or how images in comic presented to us so many years ahead .
Its not about right or wrong body or movement proportions - Shadow and bounce lights captured in image form (which 3D superior and accurate in this area) but its about how to brought Exaggerate emotions/actions via images. Its hard to get same effect without breaking the 3D laws ;)
I saw several Behind the scene of Cel Shading Games which showed me how they bent the rules of 3D via carefully scalling several body part and camera placement to make equivalent with what people brain already familiar with 2D mediums.
3D tools actually really good tools to help story teller in many ways , but we just need to always breaking the rules about it if we want to dive in already established format just like comic or cel shading world . Liquify in Photoshop is one of useful feature to help us to achieve it . Some people just ignore the face and choose to draw the eyes or expressions to reduce what comic purist called as "lifeless"
I think I like Filament - Daz Outline (script) render and Photoshop combo
That looks nice. I have also wondered if Filament could be used for NPR renders.
Have to explore it myself.
As a celebration for the sailor moon new movie "sailor moon Eternal". Cloths and hair are from "sailor moon project" except boots. Boots are from "DAZ Aiko3.0 Sexy Uniform SET by makoto" instead of sailor boots. Because I could not extract the zip file of sailor boots. So boots in this image are not sailor moon costume.
Awesome !!
Mando and Grogu
This is the way.
Looks really good, buddy. Composition is nice, and you did a great job on the armor reflections.
Now... I just need to sit down and actually watch this series!
Good observations. We get away with a LOT of things in comic art because it's the art of reduction. We cut out what's unnecessary so we can focus on what is important/what is left. Take a look at this Richie Rich comic page:
Even without reading it, we get the setting that he's in his dad's office and that he's being kind or sentimental about the old guy there. Notice how often the background is removed and replaced with simple color. Almost everything is removed except figures that are interacting to emote a scene.
I used something similar to this in my own comic: I removed the background and replaced it with a simple gray color because it was more effective to remove background clutter and just let your eyes focus on the emotions and action of the central character.
I could throw in a lot more examples, but I don't think I need to. And, although it is possible to use blurs and other camera-like effects in 3D, the 3D artist can't really take things out of the scene to simplify it for one panel because 3D is so close to real that we viewers would notice the absence of the missing elements and probably think of them as continuity errors. Now go back to the RR comic and look at the background in panel 4. Based on the other panels, there should be a painting behind Mr. Rich. But we don't see it here because the artist (wislely) removed it to eliminate clutter. If this were a 3D scene filled with realistic figures and high-def shaders, we readers would expect to see that painting behind them. In that scenario, the director/artist would probably shift the camera angle so it shifted the painting out of our view. So, even though both styles of art can achieve the same thing (simplifying backgrounds to remove unnecessary/unwanted clutter), the two styles of art can approach the matter in different ways.
This is a super interesting breakdown and is actually one of the main reasons I started working toward a painterly style when doing 3D art--it lets me selectively keep realistic details from a render for emphasis and spend less time perfecting stuff that isn't meant to be a focus of the piece. Does the one prop that works for my background look obviously like a 3D model? Shazam, now it looks like just enough paintstrokes to let you know it exists without being distractingly weird.
I found that the further I take an image away from photorealistic, the more I have to make the choices a 2D artist would to really sell the effect. At that point leaving in details solely for the sake of realism/continuity starts to look like a creative error, and what looks fantastic as a photorealistic shot kind of reads like I'm haphazardly copying reference without understanding what should have emphasis.
Shadow and bouncing light effects are a great example; in a photorealistic image you naturally don't want shadows falling where they obscure detail or props placed where they would be distracting, and that goes into how you set up the scene. But also the viewer is going to absorb most tiny stuff you can't control as part of a realistic environment. There is obviously stuff off camera because the picture is a snapshot of a larger environment that actually exists.
In a sketch or painting, there are no items casting shadows out of view unless the artist makes a proactive decision to put them there. They don't physically exist beyond the frame. So while you'd expect someone to paint in the suggestion of offscreen items casting shadow, it would probably be limited to the major sources--an important prop, a tree outside the window, the biggest furniture. They wouldn't spend tons of time calculating the exact light bounce of every item established in a previous shot unless they were going for photorealism, and in stylized images everything you include is likely to be parsed as a source of information. Extra information is either confusing or distracting.
I think I've learned more about doing art by hand through reverse-engineering it for postwork than I did in years of study, but I'm coming to terms with having a backwards learning style in general.