Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Normalmaps take more time to create, for one.
I imagine a major problem is, as was mentioned, that they're not compatible with all versions of DS and Poser.
The biggest issue in DAZ, however, is that normalmaps are currently NOT DIALABLE. That means that a normalmap can only be at the default 100%, and there's no min/max dials, either. This goes for shaders as well (Can't speak for PWSurface as I don't have that yet) (I cannot speak for Poser as far as dials go)
Of course, the real problem with creating normal maps is that to make genuinely good ones, you need to build it off a figure which already had that detail modeled into it.
edit: correction, THAT is the primary reason. But the dials issue I brought up doesn't help.
I see no noticeable render time reductions between Normal vs Bump in DS3 or DS4.5.
Same here.
...Wait, actually, I think I recall with Nobiax's/Yughues's textures, that the Normalmaps instead of Bumpmaps actually reduced render time a little bit.
This means that doing it for things like skin textures aren’t particularly easy or viable. There are plugins for programs like Photoshop which allow you to create normal maps from diffuse and bump textures, but the results aren’t much different to using a bump map anyway.
I disagree. With bumpmaps, at higher/vibrant levels, I always get either a dimpled/cratered appearance at with closeups-- or a pixelated look-- even with GOOD bumpmaps. With a good normalmap (even one using the Nvidia Tools/GIMP Normalmap + Overlay layermode technique), you get crisp, vibrant edges. Even I realize it's true that this technique wouldn't work for skin or other human-based textures, nor for certain other types of highly detailed textures. But for terrain and background textures where a strong bump is desired, Normalmaps can't be beat... unless of course you're using Age of Armour's Subsurface Shader--- it can't raise or lower the tiling of normalmaps, so you're basically reduced to UbS or UbS2 if you want to tile them.
Normal map in Zbrush take as much time as displacement maps, so no time all. Poser has 3 different options for normal maps and you can dial both pos/neg values. But to be honest games engines do a way better job than both of them. What ever they need in their code to get them to look good it's just not there now. I not crazy on the delight render particularly with how slow it is with transparency maps. I'm just sticking with displacement maps for now until someone improves on what it is now.
There are a couple ways to get better render times on transparency maps - UberHair is one and the other (maybe better) is described in this thread using a geometry shell: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/4949/
This is exactly the problem I encountered on my latest shader pack. I actually created normal maps for over half of my textures, but I didn't include them because they rendered terribly. It was an all or nothing situation, and 100% was incredibly spikey and not at all the look I was going for. If I could have dialed down to 40-60% it would have been perfect. I think parameters on normal maps would be good to add in Mantis for a feature request.
I've been doing some tests recently to see how well fine detail in Zbrush transfers to Luxrender so this thread caught my eye.
I put together a comparison of some of the tests. When Zbrush bakes displacement maps it estimates the scale and writes that value into the file name, this value was used in 3Delight for the min/max values set at 100% for consistency. The value was converted to meters for Luxrender and doubled for the bump map because Lux only uses positive values for bump. I wanted to also do a comparison with Reality which does include negative values in it's bump settings but since the area light was parented to a camera it didn't show up in the editor and I didn't care enough to adjust the scene and have to re-render everything. :P
When first seeing the results of the normal map in 3Delight, I thought that the baking settings I used for Luxrender were incompatible but it seems that it's a match to what Lux produces with the "generate tangents" option enabled. That option is recommended in the wiki to reduce seam issues but in this case it's causing some of the bumps to appear lit from below. There might be a way to disable it in Studio with shader builder or scripting but that's quite a bit more work than I'm interested in.
The Luxrender normal image has more direction in the shadows giving it more detail but it also appears harsher than what I was seeing in Zbrush. It might be possible to fix this with xNormal however it adds to the workflow and would require some trial and error to get right.
All three Luxrender images were set to halt at 1500 s/p, it's possible that the bump render might "catch up" in details at higher samples. When layered in photoshop it's already pretty consistent with the results from Studio, just a bit ...fatter because of the difference in how the normals are calculated. Trilinear filtering is also an option for the bump.
From the point of view of trying to produce content for Daz figures, I certainly wouldn't include normal maps for Studio or Poser mats if they all looked like this. However, I would consider making optional presets if I was setting up Luxus materials if I can work a few things out and depending on how they look at different distances. Static objects like walls and floors are a different matter, I tend to prefer normal maps on them for my own renders but like other people have mentioned there are some issues that could make them less desirable in a product.
This is only one test but considering the huge variety of possibilities in the creation of normal maps and how they are dealt with in different render engines, I'd rather not spend a lifetime trying to find a combination that works well in all situations...there's always dumb luck though. :)
I think Bejaymac really hit on the reason why they aren't more common. If people keep buying processed diffuse maps for the bump channel, where's the incentive for vendors to take the time to make dedicated bump maps or normal maps?
The reason it appears harsher when using normals is because it's calculating more than one direction, so more points of the figure catch the light easier. For this reason you can adjust normal map settings and reduce it down when you don't need quite as much detail. When combined with textures, it can genuinely add a lot of detail and will always be superior to bump maps simply because of how they function. By definition, bump maps work by making things appear higher or lower, but normal maps instead work by changing the normals of the figure on a per-pixel basis giving the illusion of having a lot more geometry in the figure than usual.
I do agree that it's not a catch-all solution to adding detail to figures, and there are a lot of different variables to consider, but until they develop a displacement map which works in three dimensions it still offers features which are unavailable with traditional mediums.
Lately more and more products seem to be featuring normal maps and I am very greatful for that.
Great would be if the PA would include different presets to load bump, normal, and displacement maps so the customer then can choose that option that fits the project or software.
I believe that there are more and more people using different software and render engines to use DAZ content.
From that point of view there is not one solution that is perfect for everyone.
As an example: Octane Render uses Bump and Normal maps but currently Displacement maps are not supported.
And of course there is a slider to adjust the strenght of the normal map.
- - -
There is a free Photoshop Plugin by Nvidia that can be used to quickly transform displacement to normal maps:
Link to download:
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-texture-tools-adobe-photoshop
Link to video tutorial:
http://vimeo.com/55570501
- - -
So basically everyone can transform displacement maps to normal maps within just a few minutes.
From a global perspective it would just seem more time efficent if the PA would do that task for the customers.
The basic idea being if one PA can do the conversion in 5 minutes then there is no need that hundreds of customers need to do the same task over and over.
..anything like that for us in the "cheap seats" (eg GIMP/PSP)?
I dont do anything normal!
oh...thats not what you meant ;)
you can fix that by flipping the green channel in photoshop,or tell z-brush to flip it on export
..yeah, but do you need a 700USD application to do that?
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2763521
here's the node setup for flipping the green channel in Poser,should be more or less the same in DS using shader mixer
For $40, you can get a pretty useful tool that also supports normal map creation. It's not the same thing as baking multi-resolution meshes in Zbrush, but I still use ShaderMap all the time to convert bump maps into normal maps and then clean them up a bit.
And as others have pointed out, Blender has tools for normal maps, too.
..anything like that for us in the "cheap seats" (eg GIMP/PSP)?
This should work in PSP and GIMP. I say should because I haven't tried it out yet. For that matter, it may even work in the latest IrfanView.
There is the plugin gimp-normalmap, which can convert bump maps to normal maps and even has a 3d preview. Note that simply converting from bump to normal map practically cannot result in better quality normals than in the original bump map, so if this is useful is mainly determined by what is being done with the normal map after the conversion (and except for the conversion itself, 2d paint programs are particularly bad at manipulating normal maps). Especially with gimp, which cannot handle HDRs.
I love carrara. :cheese:
Inverting a normal map in the shader is one check.
I have an old wooden bench. I want it cracked, wrapped, and stuff carved in it; displacement map. I also want a flaky wood grain surface; normal or bump.
Well I don't have a normal, I have a bump. What to do? See sig. ;-)
In Genetica I can take the bump map and overlay a wood/flake noise and render a normal map :coolgrin:
Phtofilter also has a normal map converter plug in. Hope others work better :lol: