Loading...
> >

3Delight Surface and Lighting Thread

1…4243454748…52

Comments

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,843
    edited December 1969

    ...looks better

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited April 2015

    Thanks,

    Couldn't help thinking he looked a tad dull though, I adjusted the diffuse values and colours and then I realised I hadn't adjusted any of the gamma in the maps. I think I'm there now...

    CHEERS!

    Bjorn_Spec_Test.jpg
    577 x 750 - 214K
    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,843
    edited December 1969

    ....yes, defintely better with the adjustments.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Thank you,

    Here's his promo shot, complete with the Daz background colour from M6HD.

    CHEERS!

    Bjorn_New_MAT.jpg
    577 x 750 - 205K
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,843
    edited December 1969

    ...years ago I entered a challenge where the project was to design a promo for the store. As I recall the actual size was 500 x 650. Not sure if that changed with the new store.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited April 2015

    That's not all that far off what I'm using, mine are 577 x 750 and that's using their 10:13 ratio. When you click on their current promo pics in the store the size varies but most are 960 x 1248.

    CHEERS!

    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,414
    edited December 1969

    -=>UNLURK,<=-<br />

    Rogerbee said:
    That's not all that far off what I'm using, mine are 577 x 750 and that's using their 10:13 ratio. When you click on their current promo pics in the store the size varies but most are 960 x 1248.

    CHEERS!

    Some are at 1000x1300 and I've seen other sizes as well with now stuff. on occasion I do see new stuff with promos that are inadequate to make out any details, as if the promos were made a few decades ago for VGA, not SVGA, VGA displays. 400x300, what is that, lol. That's About what's left after putting a browser on a 640x480 desktop, lol.


    Rogerbee, your adventures with skin textures are looking really good.
    -=>Lurk<=-</p>

  • evilded777evilded777 Posts: 2,482
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:
    evilded777 said:
    wowie said:
    Rogerbee said:
    I see,

    One thing with your MATs, on some textures, where the eyebrows on the original texture are dark, your MATs always made them look a bit orange. However, the problem is fixed when you put a colour map in the Subsurface Colour. Check below. If you are planning an update for this package, I'd suggest adding maps to that channel in all the MATs, just to be safe.

    That's pretty much unavoidable with SSS. The only way to somewhat minimize that effect is to use a customized SSS control map. Using the diffuse map means you'll lose that SSS glow (or at least you need to compensate for the loss).

    Making SSS control maps is easy. Just bring the diffuse texture into in image editor, desaturate it (or turn it into greyscale) and do a filter until the skin areas are white (or close to white) but keep the eyebrows (and other facial hair) dark.

    Of course, all of these workarounds can be avoided altogether if texture sets come with no baked in eyebrows or facial hair. :)
    I strongly think that should've been done in the first place. We can always use a geometry shell with just a tad of positive offset like the eyebrow poly of the old Gen4 figures.

    What FILTER? Please? I'm weak in PhotoShop but I really want to know how to do this.

    It's not a filter, it's in the Image menu under Adjustments.

    CHEERS!

    That really still doesn't answer my question: how does one even out the tones to get white/near white?

  • evilded777evilded777 Posts: 2,482
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:
    Thanks,

    Couldn't help thinking he looked a tad dull though, I adjusted the diffuse values and colours and then I realised I hadn't adjusted any of the gamma in the maps. I think I'm there now...

    CHEERS!

    Why are you manually adjusting the gamma in the maps when turning GC On does that for you?

    Not trying to be difficult, you've advanced quite a bit here... that's plain to see. Just questioning your methodology.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Mainly because I load one MAT and then put other textures over it, when the fresh textures are loaded, the gamma zeros. It depends on the texture, some are at the right values and others are not. I guess I'm just being meticulous.

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    zarcondeegrissom said:
    -=>UNLURK,<=-<br />
    Rogerbee said:
    That's not all that far off what I'm using, mine are 577 x 750 and that's using their 10:13 ratio. When you click on their current promo pics in the store the size varies but most are 960 x 1248.

    CHEERS!

    Some are at 1000x1300 and I've seen other sizes as well with now stuff. on occasion I do see new stuff with promos that are inadequate to make out any details, as if the promos were made a few decades ago for VGA, not SVGA, VGA displays. 400x300, what is that, lol. That's About what's left after putting a browser on a 640x480 desktop, lol.


    Rogerbee, your adventures with skin textures are looking really good.
    -=>Lurk<=-</div>

    I have noticed some different sizes, but the majority that I downloaded were 960 x 1248. I render mine to the size I do as you get detail and they load quickly on here.

    I'm glad you like the skin, I'm just getting started. All I needed was a springboard and PSK2 provided just that

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    evilded777 said:

    That really still doesn't answer my question: how does one even out the tones to get white/near white?

    I think it's to do with the Levels function. It's not something I delve into much.

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Well, I very nearly had a disaster on my hands,

    I was doing some spring cleaning in my folders.... AND I ACCIDENTALLY DELETED THE SCENE FILE CONTAINING MY NEW BJORN MAT AND I HADN'T SAVED THE MAT!!!

    However, as luck would have it, I did have a scene I'd been working on prior to it and I still had some values typed up on this thread, so, I copied them, made all the adjustments and I'm back to where I was. This time I've saved the MAT and the scene and have made back up copies on another drive, so, hopefully I'm covered if I make such a dumb*&^ mistake again!

    CHEERS!

    Bjorn_New_MAT_Full.jpg
    577 x 750 - 214K
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,843
    edited April 2015

    Rogerbee said:
    That's not all that far off what I'm using, mine are 577 x 750 and that's using their 10:13 ratio. When you click on their current promo pics in the store the size varies but most are 960 x 1248.

    CHEERS!


    ...it also depends on where the viewing size is set. This was the size back in the "old days" before Magento.

    Wonder if we can get an "official" word on it.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,843
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    Well, I very nearly had a disaster on my hands,

    I was doing some spring cleaning in my folders.... AND I ACCIDENTALLY DELETED THE SCENE FILE CONTAINING MY NEW BJORN MAT AND I HADN'T SAVED THE MAT!!!

    However, as luck would have it, I did have a scene I'd been working on prior to it and I still had some values typed up on this thread, so, I copied them, made all the adjustments and I'm back to where I was. This time I've saved the MAT and the scene and have made back up copies on another drive, so, hopefully I'm covered if I make such a dumb*&^ mistake again!

    CHEERS!


    ...I always offload my older works to an archive file.
  • deleted userdeleted user Posts: 1,204
    edited April 2015

    TBH. Your mistake was actually beneficial. The last render you posted up was almost as good as it gets for Daz3D.

    Too high of a specular
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/index.php?&ACT=50&fid=4&aid=192097_hsR6OdEG5DZ7O38w7l8s&thumb=1&board_id=1

    Perfect Balance between too much and not enough
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/index.php?&ACT=50&fid=4&aid=192162_tjqPrYXFqjKckQg6kr5X&board_id=1

    either that, or its the lighting.

    Post edited by deleted user on
  • NoName99NoName99 Posts: 322
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    Well, I very nearly had a disaster on my hands,

    I was doing some spring cleaning in my folders.... AND I ACCIDENTALLY DELETED THE SCENE FILE CONTAINING MY NEW BJORN MAT AND I HADN'T SAVED THE MAT!!!

    However, as luck would have it, I did have a scene I'd been working on prior to it and I still had some values typed up on this thread, so, I copied them, made all the adjustments and I'm back to where I was. This time I've saved the MAT and the scene and have made back up copies on another drive, so, hopefully I'm covered if I make such a dumb*&^ mistake again!

    CHEERS!

    This is seriously good. You're getting really good at this.

  • Kevin SandersonKevin Sanderson Posts: 1,643
    edited December 1969

    Wowie's lights and SSS settings along with the US2 Layered Shader, and the great textures they work with make it very easy to get good results. My work soared with the wowie's first Photo Studio Kit as it made it all work correctly, especially if you use Gamma 2.2 as wowie tells you. Otherwise the skin colors are not correct.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,414
    edited April 2015

    Kevin Sanderson said:
    Wowie's lights and SSS settings along with the US2 Layered Shader, and the great textures they work with make it very easy to get good results. My work soared with the wowie's first Photo Studio Kit as it made it all work correctly, especially if you use Gamma 2.2 as wowie tells you. Otherwise the skin colors are not correct.
    I have a slightly different opinion with one part of that, as I don't care to be remaking figures mats all month long. I'd rather just be making renders with the products purchased as is. And part of that requires, being able to see what's going on in the view-field.
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/793962/
    I don't think there is a one way is the 'Correct' way with 3delight and Daz Studio.
    WorkingWithGcOn_001.png
    1746 x 1000 - 651K
    20150329_PaLineup_04009_Render_9_GCoff_Gamma100.jpg
    2000 x 1200 - 2M
    20150331_PaLineup_04GcTest005_GcOn220_Render_3.jpg
    2000 x 1200 - 1M
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited April 2015

    Rogerbee said:
    Ok, had another play. I turned down the specular from 100% to 50% and the glossiness up to 27.5% and 20% for the lips. See what you reckon:

    You should raise the fresnel strength first and then adjust the specular strength if you want to tweak the specular. Adjusting fresnel first means you still maintain the specular strength when he's viewed at grazing angles.

    First one is with both specular strength at 50% and the other is 100% but with adjusted fresnel.

    7.jpg
    823 x 1070 - 267K
    8.jpg
    823 x 1070 - 261K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited April 2015

    This is how it looks from the front.

    Generally the same in terms of specular highlights when viewed directly. So, when you're thinking specular, think fresnel. Fresnel is your friend. :)

    That's the amazing thing with fresnel - no need to adjust glossiness or even light intensities to get believable specular highlights. And certainly no need to use specular only lights that doesn't cast shadows.

    4.jpg
    823 x 1070 - 293K
    5.jpg
    823 x 1070 - 293K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited December 1969

    evilded777 said:

    What FILTER? Please? I'm weak in PhotoShop but I really want to know how to do this.

    I used GIMP for the above example, but the settings shouldn't be that much different. You still have to use the eraser on the eyelids and the lips, but those settings should give quite a good control map for SSS strength.

    Mask.jpg
    1930 x 1158 - 455K
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    wowie said:
    This is how it looks from the front.

    Generally the same in terms of specular highlights when viewed directly. So, when you're thinking specular, think fresnel. Fresnel is your friend. :)

    That's the amazing thing with fresnel - no need to adjust glossiness or even light intensities to get believable specular highlights. And certainly no need to use specular only lights that doesn't cast shadows.

    The fresnel is where you left it and I'm happy with what I've got thanks.

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    FlowerGirl said:
    TBH. Your mistake was actually beneficial. The last render you posted up was almost as good as it gets for Daz3D.

    Too high of a specular
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/index.php?&ACT=50&fid=4&aid=192097_hsR6OdEG5DZ7O38w7l8s&thumb=1&board_id=1

    Perfect Balance between too much and not enough
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/index.php?&ACT=50&fid=4&aid=192162_tjqPrYXFqjKckQg6kr5X&board_id=1

    either that, or its the lighting.

    Thank you!

    The lighting is the same, the rest is hasty improvisation due to lack of memory. (Mine that is.)

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Kyoto Kid said:

    ...I always offload my older works to an archive file.

    I will do that now, LOL!

    CHEERS!

  • wowiewowie Posts: 2,029
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    The fresnel is where you left it and I'm happy with what I've got thanks.

    It's up to you of course.

    I'm merely noting that adjusting specular strength is not the best course to do it. For clarification, instead of adjusting specular strength from 100% to 50%, all you need to do is adjust fresnel strength from say 90% to 95%. You still ended up with the same amount of specular (100% - 90% is 10 %, and 100% - 95% is 5%, or 50% the previous value).

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited April 2015

    Ok, that made more sense and I made the adjustment, it seemed to have the identical effect to what I did so I'll go with it then.

    CHEERS!

    Bjorn_Fresnel.jpg
    577 x 750 - 215K
    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited April 2015

    Had a crack at Rob and I actually turned the glossiness off on his body.

    CHEERS!

    Rob_New_MAT.jpg
    577 x 750 - 190K
    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    And now Neo,

    Am I doing well here!?

    CHEERS!

    Neo_New_MAT.jpg
    577 x 750 - 208K
  • Mustakettu85Mustakettu85 Posts: 2,933
    edited December 1969

    evilded777 said:

    That really still doesn't answer my question: how does one even out the tones to get white/near white?

    Divide by the colour closest to the main skin tone.

    ----------------

    Rogerbee said:
    Heeeere's Gia!!

    I did make some adjustments, like setting gamma on the maps, 2.2 for diffuse and 1 for spec and bump and I think she looks like she did in the promos.

    You could try lowering diffuse strength or diffuse colour on that white bikini. Pure white is like 100% reflectance which isn't particularly lifelike.

    ----------------

    just look at Chappie, it was rendered with 3delight for Maya

    Chappie used physically based shaders, though, and some interesting dynamic lighting.
    http://www.fxguide.com/featured/the-practical-and-digital-tech-behind-chappie/

    Speaking of Chappie, has anyone actually seen the movie? I keep reading reviews that say that hip hop culture plays such a huuuge part in it, and so I kinda don't know if I should watch it or not (I'm anything but a hip hop fan).

Sign In or Register to comment.