Loading...
> >

Photo-real characters. A different approach.

1…2021232526

Comments

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,803
    edited May 2018
    Gregorius said:

     

    Honestly, the quest for convincing photo-realism would probably be much easier if there was more consistency in the responses. 

    I think I see what you mean, but I could not disagree more. If the goal is to be convincing to the greatest number of people, then you need to receive feedback from a wide variety of people.

    I'll discuss it more in the new thread, but it bares mentioning here that realism and photorealism might not be the same thing. "Realism" in my eye tends to be based on what the human eye or mind's eye thinks it perceives. "Photo-realism" however related directly with what a camera would capture, with all its advanges and defects. And to this ideal Jeff's "tricky renders" offer a great deal of insights into how we need to think to pull this off. Jeff is clearly seeking an effect that can only be captured with a digital camera. Are you seeking results of a camera, or of the human eye. Once must decide. Realize that human eye perceptions are much more difficult than camera perceptions to reproduce in a render since rendering engines operate more like cameras than like binocular human eyes.

    Post edited by Rashad Carter on
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,803

    Nonesuch-

    You are very supportive and I find myself agreeing with you very often. Thanks for always supporting various community members like myself and please keep it up, Thanks, Bro for your legitimate interest!

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,333
    Rashad Carter said:

    Nonesuch-

    You are very supportive and I find myself agreeing with you very often. Thanks for always supporting various community members like myself and please keep it up, Thanks, Bro for your legitimate interest!

    thanks

  • algovincianalgovincian Posts: 2,636
    edited May 2018

    An attempt at photo-realism while rendering some newly purchased assets for the first time, including Floyd with some tweaks to his skin:

    If I render the scene again, I'll sub-divide the wheel and figure out what's causing the moire-like pattern on the table (not sure they are supposed to be there).

    - Greg

    floyd-casino-600.png
    600 x 338 - 311K
    Post edited by algovincian on
  • 3Diva3Diva Posts: 11,749
    algovincian said:

    An attempt at photo-realism while rendering some newly purchased assets for the first time, including Floyd with some tweaks to his skin:

    If I render the scene again, I'll sub-divide the wheel and figure out what's causing the moire-like pattern on the table (not sure they are supposed to be there).

    - Greg

    That looks great, Greg! Floyd 8 is awesome, isn't he? :) 

    Very cool render - nicely done!

  • 3Diva3Diva Posts: 11,749
    edited May 2018
    Rashad Carter said:
    Divamakeup said:
    Gregorius said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    Well no, hiding inaccuracies while it might trick people into believing you've make improvements doesn't change the fact the inaccuracies are still there and that you haven't made improvements. Sorry, if you want to improve then you need to improve the geometry to be more accurate, not just hide the inaccuracies with lighting and camera angles.

    If you don't want to make improvements than I fail to see why you are posting more renders of the same unchanged models you already have extensive opinions on.

     if someone else were to download my Christopher Reeve morph from ShareCG themselves and play around with it a bit. 

    I honestly don't think your main problem is the morph, but the main issues that I see are with the textures/skins.

    Here's your Chris Reeve morph on G8M. The texture is Edward 8's and adjusted with Altern8. His expression was created with PowerPose.

    While the morph is a little extreme, and with less realistic textures those extremes stand out a bit more, the main issue I see (and this is just my opinion), but your skin needs a lot of work before it approaches realism. 

    Again, that's just my opinion, and these things are probably pretty subjective. :)

     

     

    I love EVERYTHING that you do, Diva!! Seriously amazing. I think the thing I find least convincing is the lighting. Can't quite put my finger on it but the skin itself looks darned awesome to me.

    Thanks. :) That's a sweet thing to hear! 

    As for the lighting, it's an HDR. Maybe I should add some fill lights or something? smiley

    Post edited by 3Diva on
  • 3Diva3Diva Posts: 11,749
    Rashad Carter said:
    Gregorius said:

    Here's a spin-off thread dedicated to my project.  Hope to see you there!

    I wish you had placed the thread into the Commons, you'll get much more detailed feedback in my opinion. Anyhow, I'll join you over there.

    I think it probably would get removed and moved to the art thread by one of the mods. While this thread here does have a lot of images in it, it also has a lot of just text communication back and forth. His thread is probably going to be posting a lot of images (like he did here), so the best place for mainly image heavy threads is usually the art forum.

  • algovincianalgovincian Posts: 2,636
    Divamakeup said:
    algovincian said:

    An attempt at photo-realism while rendering some newly purchased assets for the first time, including Floyd with some tweaks to his skin:

    If I render the scene again, I'll sub-divide the wheel and figure out what's causing the moire-like pattern on the table (not sure they are supposed to be there).

    - Greg

    That looks great, Greg! Floyd 8 is awesome, isn't he? :) 

    Very cool render - nicely done!

    Thanks, Diva. And yes, Floyd is incredible. I believe that rendering out a 32-bit canvas, performing tone mapping in a proper 2D image editing program, adding lens effects like depth of field/vignetting, and emulating film effects all help it to look less like a 3D render.

    There was supposed to be a younger lady in the foreground on the right, but I ran out of time to play . . . doh!

    - Greg

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    Rashad Carter said:
    jeffam112368_9a28fbd572 said:
    hyteckit said:
    algovincian said:
    Gregorius said:

    Algovincian, I totally agree with the praise you've earned on your render!  Excellent work, sir!  How is it that someone whose primary focus is apparently non-photorealism manages to stand toe-to-toe with or outright outdo the best of those on this thread?

    Thanks, @Gregorius and others who commented on the image, but I don't know about that. Just finished catching up on the 10 pages I hadn't read in this thread, and to me the most impressive examples of photo-realism are @jeffam112368_9a28fbd572's examples:

     

     

    I think what adds to the realism is the lighting. The lighting in those pictures is great. Looks like someone used a flash to take those photos even though it's just suppose to be light from the monitor.

    Thanks all... I will admit a huge component of my formula for these renders is indeed the lighting.  These are all done using a single Spot Light with a Rectangle or Disc light geometry setting of around 60 by 60.  I typically position the light with the same transforms as the camera.  I've unfortunately found very little success (from a realism perspective) using other lighting schemes...   Jeff.

     

     

    Jeff, Firstly thanks for chiming in. Though your post isnt very long it does make a few statements that I think thread viewers need to keep in mind. Much of this I've stated in other threads in discussions with Jeff but I think it bears repeating again here at this stage in the thread.

    1. You had to identify the aspects of the Daz Models and Daz texturing trends that detract from realism under normal lighting and staging conditions. This includes weakneeses in the eye modeling as well as common texture construction shortcomings. This is a smart first step and to my mind the main step missing for most of us as we endeavor on this quest. Better identificatin of "what's wrong" is the only way to devise tricks to solve it.

    2. Secondly you made the decision either consciously or unconsciously to mimic camera effects, which while similar to cornea effects are not entirely the same. By embracing the artifacts of a camera and its "errors" such as chromatic abberation and other effects are used to create a context where the target model can exist within. it is in the specificity of this "context" that the magic emerges in my opinion.

    3. You openly admit that the the results are not based on luck, but on a set of tricks or even techniques which you admit that the formulation you are using now is not terribly robust, which means that only slight changes to any aspect of the formula and the effects doesnt reach the goal. There are constraints.

    4. The shots appear mundane, not as if they are driven by an artistic need to "make a statement." That lack of obvious commentary actually lends itself to realism more than anything since realism is usually not purposefully staged. Not that there is no commentary, just that you arent banging us over the head with it. To put it another way, if you were to render a Millenium Dragon under these exact same lighting schemes and techniques it would still appear less realistic simply due to the subject matter being an imaginary dragon sitting at a computer desk wearing casual garments. Basically you know whcih risks you can take and which ones to avoid. Smart.

    I state all of this because as we are all at different levels of understanding, skill and desire to improve thus it can be challenging for newer members to truly appreciate what you are doing and why it isnt done more often by more people. Great though this is, it has limits and one needs to understand what those limits are if they want to extend these techniques beyond their current limitations.

     

    NylonGirl said:
    Ooze3d said:

    I've got a question for whoever wants to give an opinion on this matter.

    I've been involved in 3d stuff for a very long time. Mostly as a hobby and a side job, but I hadn't done any human related work till I started messing around with Daz Studio about a year ago. From that moment I've been a bit obsessed, like many others, with skin shading and mostly what makes an image appear like a real photo. Something that's so simple with objects now that we have lots of different Global Illumination and Unbiased render engines, always seems to have something off when it comes to simulating a human character, as we all know.

    I've been reading tons of articles, endless forum threads, posts, tutorials... all of them about creating the perfect skin (and hair, eyes... everything). All of them go on and on about technical stuff on the lights, the behaviour of all the different layers of the skin and a huge list of everything you need to do to make your character look alive and realistic. Most threads have high res pictures showing incredibly detailed renders and explaining how you can't have your photo-real look without:

    - A good lighting setup.

    - The allmighty displacement map. Some people swear by this one.

    - 357 different maps for all the different layers of the skin. Dermal, subdermal, blood vessels, coating, bump, translucency, reflectance, glossy roughness, sss... all of them absolutely essential if you don't want to fail miserably.

    - Imperfections. Moles, creases, freckles, marks, pores... if you don't have them, it looks too perfect and reeks of CGI.

    - A proper, natural pose and expression.

    ...and on and on. But now I've got a question:

    If I need a proper lighting setup, bump, coating, gloss... how is that my eyes can look at a badly lit, low res, screen cap from a heavily compressed phone video showing a flat face with a vacant expression and not doubt for a second that I'm looking at a real person?

    Or if I need all the fine detail, the displacement, the imperfections and all that, how is that I can see a high res photo of a model with heavy makeup and photoshop work on top to the point where I can see no pores, no creases, no moles, no freckles, again with the kind of vacant, lifeless expression that most models seem to love... and still be 100% sure that this woman is human and was alive at the moment they took that picture?

    And how is that I can take 99% of the best Daz Studio renders DeviantArt has to offer, no matter the resolution, distance to the subject, amazingly detailed maps, lighting conditions, render engine (iRay, Octane or Reality), extra photoshop work... after all these years and having literally thousands of people working hard to make their renders look as realistic as possible, I can't find a single one that manages to fool my eye and makes me think I could be looking at a real person (I'm specifically leaving apart examples rendered in Arnold. I’m only talking about Daz Studio).

    Note: Don't get me wrong. I'm only talking about photorealism. No one denies the hard work and the artistic value of the images I'm talking about.

    Now, if we don't really need to see all the details. If we don't need the perfect lighting setup. If we don't need to see natural expressions or the skin shining in a certain way to tell apart real people from a render, then what's the key? What's the secret ingredient that's missing?

    I'm asking because I'm far from sure, although I'd say my highest bet has something to do with the eyes.

    What do you think?

    This thread seems to have lost its way. The original post from “Ooze3d” was about how people keep offering all of these technical reasons for lack of realistic renders; posts heavy on suggestions about proper lighting, facial expression, and whatnot. And that post also noted that on the Snapchat style media, people post one picture after another with terrible lighting, little to no facial expression, and no thought given to composition, yet no one questions whether they are real people.

    And I’ve noticed this thread, which could have been a refreshing change to the norm, seems to have degenerated into yet another thread where a few post images to show off their work and a few get criticized on technical details about their images to no avail. It’s like everyone has forgotten the valid points in the original post.

    I feel the need to explain a little bit the focus on technicalities. I interpreted the opening post quite differently than you. To my mind the post wanders a good bit, doesnt really point to anything specific as a discussion direction and seemed to me to be more of an open call for ideas about pretty much anything related to 3d rendering that improves the likelihood of a character based image appearing as realistic; and to the deeper questions as to why we can always identify a real photo when we see one regardless of issues like "bad lighting." It is a mistake in my view to try to attack all aspects of realistic rendering at once. It's like seeing an advanced multi-staged firework under display and trying to explain it with only the understanding of basic fire making principles...no way you'd be able to explain all the colors and delayed reactions and other effects present in a sophisticated firework display. It must be broken down into digestible pieces which admittedly are different sizes for everyone!

    What I assumed the OP was looking for was for people to propose ideas which could be REPEATED by anyone at will in order to achieve similar results. So while on one hand it may seem as though some are just showing off unfortunately without those examples the thread would have nothing to discuss. Jeff's examples are great, but to be honest his results are not repeatable for anyone other than himself, and thus not terribly helpful to the next guy unless of course the next guy is willing to work within the exact same constrants as Jeff which is unlikely.

    Lighting-

    It first must be stated that from an accuracy standpoint it is physically impossible to have "bad lighting" in real life. Light always behaves as it should in real life, even if the lighitng isnt flattering for a given target, it is still accurate, so in a sense all light is "good." This underlying accuracy from light propogation, bounce between surfaces, energy conservation etc; if we can bring it into our CG work, should enable us to get closer to results that appear "realistic" even if it isnt particularly flattering. 

    Geometry-

    It's also physically impossible in real life to have "bad geometry." Things in real life are made up of three dimensions even if one or more are very thin like the leaf of a tree, its still not infinitely thin or smooth on top. This underlying accuracy of surfaces is part of why we can identify real photo most of the time.

    Texturing-

    Its also impossible in real life to have a "bad texture." Things just simply are what they are. Water always refracts as it should and skin always transmits as it should in real life. Again, this underlying accuracy is still at work even in poorly lit real world situations,and again I argue that it is this underlying accuracy that helps us know when we're looking at something real.

    Posing, Staging-

    While I do keep reading that people need believable posing to judge the merits of a character render, I find it hard to believe to a certain degree. And if people are indeed judging realism in this thread based on those ideals, I think it can become a distraction. Even a corpse looks like a real corpse, even though all it does is lay there motionless, emotionless, with no intent or connection to anything. Admittedly, we dont usual find images of corpses very pleasing, but that doesnt mean we dont know they are real. For example instead of uploading images of human faces what if we were only uploading images of human hands? Unlike faces hands arent "required" to really do much of anything. Why is it that a real photo of a human hand always look realistic yet a render of a human hand often doesnt? It's not an issue of posing, in this case it again comes down to accuracy.

    Rashad,

    Thanks for elaborating on my short description - your comments are spot on and told better than I could have.  As an aside, to prove your point, I've tried desperately to render realistic male characters using my same techniques as described above...literally, the same scene, lighting, etc..only difference being I used a male character (also heavily textured to support my muddy/old-digital cam-like appearance).  In all attempts, they failed the 'eye test' for realism.  To me, this is due to the fact that the male 3d models available, while detailed, all have this Superman like face that for the life of me I cannot dial out...it just ends up looking a little eerie!  This is mainly due to the eyes and much talked about lack of definition for that area of the models.  With my female characters I get around this applying a heavy dose of eye liner to the base material, which for a female is acceptable and hides the eye geometry imperfections present in all current Daz models.  Anyhow...thats just more of my ramblings! 

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    Rashad Carter said:
    Gregorius said:

     

    Honestly, the quest for convincing photo-realism would probably be much easier if there was more consistency in the responses. 

    I think I see what you mean, but I could not disagree more. If the goal is to be convincing to the greatest number of people, then you need to receive feedback from a wide variety of people.

    I'll discuss it more in the new thread, but it bares mentioning here that realism and photorealism might not be the same thing. "Realism" in my eye tends to be based on what the human eye or mind's eye thinks it perceives. "Photo-realism" however related directly with what a camera would capture, with all its advanges and defects. And to this ideal Jeff's "tricky renders" offer a great deal of insights into how we need to think to pull this off. Jeff is clearly seeking an effect that can only be captured with a digital camera. Are you seeking results of a camera, or of the human eye. Once must decide. Realize that human eye perceptions are much more difficult than camera perceptions to reproduce in a render since rendering engines operate more like cameras than like binocular human eyes.

    Have to chime in here, too... yes, I COMPLETELY agree there are different meanings to the word 'realism' or even photorealism.  As you noted, I'm completely going for a form of realism that can pass a sort of visual 'Turing Test' -- that is, if I show it to someone without any pretense, will they believe it's a low-quality digital photo they're looking at.  I actually test out how successful my attempts are by going on a popular online chat board and posting my render as my profile photo to see what responses I get.  Currently, if I select my renders carefully I can get around 90% success rate.  Now if you were to zoom in on the face my renders you'd think it not realistic at all...the effect breaks down.  

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    Divamakeup said:
    algovincian said:

    An attempt at photo-realism while rendering some newly purchased assets for the first time, including Floyd with some tweaks to his skin:

    If I render the scene again, I'll sub-divide the wheel and figure out what's causing the moire-like pattern on the table (not sure they are supposed to be there).

    - Greg

    That looks great, Greg! Floyd 8 is awesome, isn't he? :) 

    Very cool render - nicely done!

    very good!!!  great feeling, too!

  • notiuswebnotiusweb Posts: 110
    edited May 2018
    Rashad Carter said:

    Magnumdaz,

    Thanks for reading all of that. This particular week I'm convinced that the best solution for Scattering Direction/ Depth is somewhere around -0.25. As far as the colors involved it all depends on how your engine implements the feature. In Octane I apply the following forumla. Not sure if this will be helpful to Iray users directly. I've still not had the chance to dig deeply enough into Iray's implementation.

    The person who really opened my eyes to what was going on was Mec4D. She has helped me to understand what each effect is supposed to do and I think it has helped me tremendously. I must say that much of what I am saying is not my discovery at all but shared information for much wiser sources.

    Absorption-

    To create the effect of the life affirming Red being transmitted at the protruding edges you want to apply an Absorption color that is complementary. In this case if you desire to have a fully Red (Hue 0) colored result, you will set the Absorption to the exact opposite which is full Green (Hue 50). Also I find that for Absorption you want the color to be on the darker end of the value scale and not to exceed 80% of full saturation.

    Scattering-

    To create the effect of the green/blue being scattered in areas which are concave, such as eye sockets, you'll want to again choose Hue 50, with a saturation not to exceed 85% of maximum and a lightness not to exceed 65% of maximum.

    Transmission-

    You'll also want to use your albedo or diffuse map as your Transmission Color. This way your Scattering and your Absorption are working with the colors that actually exist in your map and not some arbitrary color or other arbitrary map.

    You'll want some means of greatly lowering the saturation of the Diffuse/Albedo. Allow the SSS to fill in the remaining color requirements.

    My own work:

    Below I have uploaded a few examples of a texture set I'm developing for Michael 5. Its a project where I derive 20 different skin tones ranging from albino to very dark for a given texture, while producing three texture threads, totalling 60 textures. I truly do see human skin tones as a continous spectrum. The textures all share the same bump and other effect maps, amking their usage multiple times in a scene very efficient. more on that some other time. Yes I've been working on these textures for literally YEARS. I've included shots with both strong directional light and soft indirect diffuse lighting.

    BTW it was the study of all these multiple skin tones at one time that lead me to the understanding of Scattering Direction and discerning what color a particualr skin was actually supposed to be; that I was often perceiving skins to be lighter or darker than they really were. Only when you have a true spectrum of available options can we really be sure how a skin tone actually should appear

    Feedback is greatly greatly appreciated. Thanks all for your time.

    @Rashad Carter - You know what's funny, is that these are some of the most photo-realistic looking *images* in this thread.  Now, let me be specific - the characters themselves do not look real, as in, do they look like real humans.  They look 'fake'.

    BUT....the look of the lighting in these images would have me believe that they are actual synthetic human props, as in special effects manequins or dummies, say on a film set. 

    So, somehow the lighting is mastered, to me!  Great work!

     

    You iknow what the real biggest problem is?

    The eyes.  As in Daz eyes.  Not our rendering of them, but the meshes and mats, I guess.

    They absolutely suck all across the board in the Daz world.  It is not our fault, they are just not there yet.  The hair is almost there now. 

    But eyes....eye-yuy-yuy....They are the give aways on a closeup.  The ONLY thing to me that has ever nailed that real-look is the recent Unreal Engine 4 Siren demo, but she/it is a different mesh-scape entirely.  And interestingly, is not raytraced!

     

    Post edited by notiusweb on
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,803

    Notiusweb,

    Thanks for making these obsevations!! I have purposefully tried to avoid doing anything particularly special with the lighting. These are Octane Renders, with the unbiased PMC kernel. I used the basic sun/sky system for the brighter renders, then I disabled the sky completely revealing the default white background, and increased exposure up from 1 to 4 so that we could see everything. Other than that nothing special. No HDRi's or anything.

     

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,803
    Divamakeup said:
    algovincian said:

    An attempt at photo-realism while rendering some newly purchased assets for the first time, including Floyd with some tweaks to his skin:

    If I render the scene again, I'll sub-divide the wheel and figure out what's causing the moire-like pattern on the table (not sure they are supposed to be there).

    - Greg

    That looks great, Greg! Floyd 8 is awesome, isn't he? :) 

    Very cool render - nicely done!

    Absolutely convincing. If given no reason to question the render Id certainly assume it was real. very good job. In a manner not completely different than Jeff, the context of the image as being captured by a camera with many of the camera related effects, helps sell the image as legitmate. Excellent!!!!!!

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited May 2018
    Divamakeup said:
    Rashad Carter said:
    Divamakeup said:
    Gregorius said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    Well no, hiding inaccuracies while it might trick people into believing you've make improvements doesn't change the fact the inaccuracies are still there and that you haven't made improvements. Sorry, if you want to improve then you need to improve the geometry to be more accurate, not just hide the inaccuracies with lighting and camera angles.

    If you don't want to make improvements than I fail to see why you are posting more renders of the same unchanged models you already have extensive opinions on.

     if someone else were to download my Christopher Reeve morph from ShareCG themselves and play around with it a bit. 

    I honestly don't think your main problem is the morph, but the main issues that I see are with the textures/skins.

    Here's your Chris Reeve morph on G8M. The texture is Edward 8's and adjusted with Altern8. His expression was created with PowerPose.

    While the morph is a little extreme, and with less realistic textures those extremes stand out a bit more, the main issue I see (and this is just my opinion), but your skin needs a lot of work before it approaches realism. 

    Again, that's just my opinion, and these things are probably pretty subjective. :)

     

     

    I love EVERYTHING that you do, Diva!! Seriously amazing. I think the thing I find least convincing is the lighting. Can't quite put my finger on it but the skin itself looks darned awesome to me.

    Thanks. :) That's a sweet thing to hear! 

    As for the lighting, it's an HDR. Maybe I should add some fill lights or something? smiley

    No I love it; I was seeing symmetry tho, that had more of an effect than the lighting, which is great.

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,333
    nicstt said:
    Divamakeup said:
    Rashad Carter said:
    Divamakeup said:
    Gregorius said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    Well no, hiding inaccuracies while it might trick people into believing you've make improvements doesn't change the fact the inaccuracies are still there and that you haven't made improvements. Sorry, if you want to improve then you need to improve the geometry to be more accurate, not just hide the inaccuracies with lighting and camera angles.

    If you don't want to make improvements than I fail to see why you are posting more renders of the same unchanged models you already have extensive opinions on.

     if someone else were to download my Christopher Reeve morph from ShareCG themselves and play around with it a bit. 

    I honestly don't think your main problem is the morph, but the main issues that I see are with the textures/skins.

    Here's your Chris Reeve morph on G8M. The texture is Edward 8's and adjusted with Altern8. His expression was created with PowerPose.

    While the morph is a little extreme, and with less realistic textures those extremes stand out a bit more, the main issue I see (and this is just my opinion), but your skin needs a lot of work before it approaches realism. 

    Again, that's just my opinion, and these things are probably pretty subjective. :)

     

     

    I love EVERYTHING that you do, Diva!! Seriously amazing. I think the thing I find least convincing is the lighting. Can't quite put my finger on it but the skin itself looks darned awesome to me.

    Thanks. :) That's a sweet thing to hear! 

    As for the lighting, it's an HDR. Maybe I should add some fill lights or something? smiley

    No I love it; I was seeing symmetry tho, that had more of an effect than the lighting, which is great.

    That render reminds me of John Grey from the English Beat but I think his eyes are brown.

  • DustRiderDustRider Posts: 2,800
    edited May 2018

    I've been watching this thread with great interests since it began, but haven't had any time to add anything to the discussion (not that I could). Unfortunately, I really can't add anything new to the discussion since I don't really strive for photorealism, just for realistic 3d. I think the OP mentioned pretty much everything I think is important in the original post. My ultra simplified way of looking at things is you need to be able to reproduce all of the intricate interplay of light and shadow (including SSS, refraction, reflection, etc.) found on the real item to make your 3d render look real. Yes, sounds "simple", but we all know it's not simple.

    Anyway, I don't have much time to write any sort of detailed comments, as life has found a way to take almost all of my free/discretionary time away, and the trend looks like it will continue for another month or more. But a had a couple of free hours, and was able to mess around with a couple of new purchases, and attached are my test render results. I think this is probably one of my better realistic efforts (still needs more work .... someday) The images are lit with the default DAZ Studio HDRI and one spotlight, with very minor levels adjustment in post.  I did to quite a bit of shader manipulation to get the results I wanted (need to spend more time, but this should work for now). Hope someone finds them interesting.

    The images below are cropped to make them DAZ friendly, but I have also provided links to my Renderosity and DA galleries for anyone interested in the full nsfw version(s).

    Rose with Lingerie (note clothing pressure morphs)

    (Warning NSFW) DA Galley Renderosity Galley

    Rose 

    (Warning NSFW) DA Galley Renderosity Galley

    Chameleon Rose4 crop.jpg
    800 x 1025 - 138K
    Chameleon Rose Nude2 crop.jpg
    800 x 1000 - 121K
    Post edited by DustRider on
  • MasterstrokeMasterstroke Posts: 2,051
    algovincian said:

    An attempt at photo-realism while rendering some newly purchased assets for the first time, including Floyd with some tweaks to his skin:

    If I render the scene again, I'll sub-divide the wheel and figure out what's causing the moire-like pattern on the table (not sure they are supposed to be there).

    - Greg

    Holy moly, this is, what I call realism. Well done!!!

  • mmkdazmmkdaz Posts: 335
    edited June 2018

    One of the things I can tell you is, I really think HDRI is necessary for realism. All of my favorite images us that form of lighting (with the exception of renders from HellBoy). The Depth, highlights and shadows seem to be necessary. Also, I think reference photos help. Here is my render with a reference photo.

    RENDER 05-31-2018.jpg
    1200 x 800 - 201K
    emma-stone.jpg
    1003 x 791 - 147K
    Post edited by mmkdaz on
  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,333

    Wow, that's the most realistic post in this thread yet.

  • SangriartSangriart Posts: 28
    edited June 2018

    I've had an idea of making a freebie prop that simulates accumulated tears and softens the prominent line between g8 lacrimals and sclera. Well, for some reason it refuses to render properly in Iray. What's really perplexing is that I get the best results when Iray automatically converts a 3Delight shader with caustics: https://i.gyazo.com/d91504cab8d33970c9c427466773ca19.png
    If there existed a corresponding Iray setup, I'd just add a transparency map for softer edges, and voila. 
    But Thin water Uber preset makes the prop virtually non-existent -  https://i.gyazo.com/18e0e6d1ef1a3f97ec7519db3fa532bc.png
    Water preset creates a total mess: https://i.gyazo.com/b72910a55c0c0f0a90268ecf7565d4d0.png
    And custom tweaking gets me nowhere. Turning caustic and/or architectural samplers on doesn't help either. Does anyone have any ideas?

    Post edited by Sangriart on
  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,923
    Sangriart said:

    I've had an idea of making a freebie prop that simulates accumulated tears and softens the prominent line benween g8 lacrimals and sclera. Well, for some reason it refuses to render properly in Iray. What's really perplexing is that I get the best results when Iray automatically converts a 3Delight shader with caustics: https://i.gyazo.com/d91504cab8d33970c9c427466773ca19.png
    If there existed a corresponding Iray setup, I'd just add a transparency map for softer edges, and voila. 
    But Thin water Uber preset makes the prop virtually non-existent -  https://i.gyazo.com/18e0e6d1ef1a3f97ec7519db3fa532bc.png
    Water preset creates a total mess: https://i.gyazo.com/b72910a55c0c0f0a90268ecf7565d4d0.png
    And custom tweaking gets me nowhere. Turning caustic and/or architectural samplers on doesn't help either. Does anyone have any ideas?

    Excellent idea! I actually wanted try that myself at some point. I had in mind to put more of lacrimals and sclera texture on it though, probably fading out towards the sclera or even both sides. I don't know, just a pipe dream not really thought through. I imagine if you just slap a water material on it, it wouldn't have the effect I wanted. Which wasn't primarily tear but just lacrimals/sclera transition. So I have no idea what to do here, but doubt it would do much visually even if it rendered correctly just with water? Could be wrong of course.

     

  • SangriartSangriart Posts: 28
    bluejaunte said:
    Sangriart said:

    I've had an idea of making a freebie prop that simulates accumulated tears and softens the prominent line benween g8 lacrimals and sclera. Well, for some reason it refuses to render properly in Iray. What's really perplexing is that I get the best results when Iray automatically converts a 3Delight shader with caustics: https://i.gyazo.com/d91504cab8d33970c9c427466773ca19.png
    If there existed a corresponding Iray setup, I'd just add a transparency map for softer edges, and voila. 
    But Thin water Uber preset makes the prop virtually non-existent -  https://i.gyazo.com/18e0e6d1ef1a3f97ec7519db3fa532bc.png
    Water preset creates a total mess: https://i.gyazo.com/b72910a55c0c0f0a90268ecf7565d4d0.png
    And custom tweaking gets me nowhere. Turning caustic and/or architectural samplers on doesn't help either. Does anyone have any ideas?

    Excellent idea! I actually wanted try that myself at some point. I had in mind to put more of lacrimals and sclera texture on it though, probably fading out towards the sclera or even both sides. I don't know, just a pipe dream not really thought through. I imagine if you just slap a water material on it, it wouldn't have the effect I wanted. Which wasn't primarily tear but just lacrimals/sclera transition. So I have no idea what to do here, but doubt it would do much visually even if it rendered correctly just with water? Could be wrong of course.

     

    It's actually a fantastic idea - if this works out, the result should be an anatomically correct conjuctiva.

  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,923
    Sangriart said:
    bluejaunte said:
    Sangriart said:

    I've had an idea of making a freebie prop that simulates accumulated tears and softens the prominent line benween g8 lacrimals and sclera. Well, for some reason it refuses to render properly in Iray. What's really perplexing is that I get the best results when Iray automatically converts a 3Delight shader with caustics: https://i.gyazo.com/d91504cab8d33970c9c427466773ca19.png
    If there existed a corresponding Iray setup, I'd just add a transparency map for softer edges, and voila. 
    But Thin water Uber preset makes the prop virtually non-existent -  https://i.gyazo.com/18e0e6d1ef1a3f97ec7519db3fa532bc.png
    Water preset creates a total mess: https://i.gyazo.com/b72910a55c0c0f0a90268ecf7565d4d0.png
    And custom tweaking gets me nowhere. Turning caustic and/or architectural samplers on doesn't help either. Does anyone have any ideas?

    Excellent idea! I actually wanted try that myself at some point. I had in mind to put more of lacrimals and sclera texture on it though, probably fading out towards the sclera or even both sides. I don't know, just a pipe dream not really thought through. I imagine if you just slap a water material on it, it wouldn't have the effect I wanted. Which wasn't primarily tear but just lacrimals/sclera transition. So I have no idea what to do here, but doubt it would do much visually even if it rendered correctly just with water? Could be wrong of course.

     

    It's actually a fantastic idea - if this works out, the result should be an anatomically correct conjuctiva.

    You mean with just water on the prop? Hmm yeah you're probably right. Maybe I was approaching this the wrong way. I thought in order to get a less harsh transition I'd want a texture overlay with sort of just the transition, that would stay in place rather than what is happening now when the eyes move. Looking at this I don't know if this would have worked out.

  • SangriartSangriart Posts: 28

    I believe conjuctiva is a thin membrane with tiny blood vessels, so your approach with texture overlay is actually more correct than pouring extra water alond the lids =) 
    Anyways, I feel like there is a major bug with Iray representation of watery substances - it doesn't allow to render surfaces such as EyeMoisture or my waterline prop in a proper way.

  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,923
    Sangriart said:

    I believe conjuctiva is a thin membrane with tiny blood vessels, so your approach with texture overlay is actually more correct than pouring extra water alond the lids =) 
    Anyways, I feel like there is a major bug with Iray representation of watery substances - it doesn't allow to render surfaces such as EyeMoisture or my waterline prop in a proper way.

    Water is transparent and so very dependant on light angle. I often don't see any eye moisture unless the light hits right. What you can try is to put a noise texture into the bump, just a little and increase the texture tiling so it looks fine enough. This should make it sparkle a little more from more angles, although strictly speaking this isn't realistic but if it helps to create the impression of wetness who cares.

  • j cadej cade Posts: 2,310

    Ooh ooh i know part of the problem and can rant about it! ...So as you know there you can set up refractive materials as thinwalled or not. Thinwalled gets a bit of reflection pretty much no refraction, but *it doesn't really cast shadows*.

    Thinwalled off on the other hand is much more accurate but it has to cast shadows and the refraction algorithm loses a bit of energy so things tend to darken.

    Sadly there isn't a perfect option (you can't just make a material not cast shadows the way you can in 3delight... Or Cycles). Your 2 choices are to keep thinwalled off and make sure that the refraction roughness is set to 0 (some weird shadows but less than if you have any roughness which is even less energy conserving) or set thinwalled on and bump up the reflectivity (by default it's .5) messing with the second glossy layer might help as well. (Also bluejauntes bump suggestion)

     

    It's not really a bug as much as a combination of the limits of shading algorithms + the way iray works (no breaking the laws of physics and making objects that don't cast shadows). Sadly, because it's not a bug that does mean it's less likely to be "fixed" (our only real hope is the implementation of a new feature)

  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,923

    Right, there's that again huh. So how's the real world different, when Iray actually insists of adhering to laws of physics? Is it just the infinite number of light rays that no renderer could possibly render... because then it would render infinitely long?

  • SangriartSangriart Posts: 28
    j cade said:

    Ooh ooh i know part of the problem and can rant about it! ...So as you know there you can set up refractive materials as thinwalled or not. Thinwalled gets a bit of reflection pretty much no refraction, but *it doesn't really cast shadows*.

    Thinwalled off on the other hand is much more accurate but it has to cast shadows and the refraction algorithm loses a bit of energy so things tend to darken.

    Sadly there isn't a perfect option (you can't just make a material not cast shadows the way you can in 3delight... Or Cycles). Your 2 choices are to keep thinwalled off and make sure that the refraction roughness is set to 0 (some weird shadows but less than if you have any roughness which is even less energy conserving) or set thinwalled on and bump up the reflectivity (by default it's .5) messing with the second glossy layer might help as well. (Also bluejauntes bump suggestion)

     

    It's not really a bug as much as a combination of the limits of shading algorithms + the way iray works (no breaking the laws of physics and making objects that don't cast shadows). Sadly, because it's not a bug that does mean it's less likely to be "fixed" (our only real hope is the implementation of a new feature)

    Thanks! I've just found out that nVidia Architectural shader, the one that's included in the MDl Examples folder, handles Thin Walled materials much better  - the result is somewhere in between those two Uber options.  https://i.gyazo.com/98a0ed2ce8de96543622547ff2469929.png
    I'll mess with the options and hopefully come out with a decent freebuy.

  • GregoriusGregorius Posts: 397

    Wow!  There's been some great stuff poster her since I decided to take a break and focus on my spin-off thread!  I particularly like DustRider's renders!  Sangriart and Bluejaunte have been discussing eyes, which have been an important thrust in my own work too, albeit not quite in the same way.  The lacrimal/sclera border was never really a focus of mine.  Yes, it could look better, but I don't think it's egregious enough to single-handedly kill the realism of an otherwise excellent render.  My main focus has been on at least shading the geometry I've got as anatomically as possible, which is why the index of refraction that I use on the cornea is actually a multiplication of the index for the cornea itself and the index for the aqueous humor (the very water-like fluid that fills the space between the cornea and iris).  I use a mask to feather this effect along the edges of the cornea.  I've also paid particular attention to the iris/sclera border, which can easily look too sharp and defined.  What seems to work (at least with the eye mapping style we've had since V4) is making the little mini-irises in the sclera material zone just a bit larger than the seam guide actually calls for and then applying a moderate blur to feather the edges.  You might have to darken the mini-irises a bit too, but that seems to do the trick.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.