Photo-real characters. A different approach.

3Diva

outrider42 said:

I think what most Daz models get wrong is how glossy their skin is. A good many characters have these nice highly detailed gloss maps...but that is the problem. Skin is not that shiny. Sure, some people have oily skin, and some may sweat, but not universally the same way over their whole body and face like many Daz models are. Daz models have shiny ears. Why are the ear lobes as shiny as the rest of the face??? We have tiny hairs that mask much of this shine. It is this high gloss that to me signals CGI most of the time. Which speaking of...I'd sure love to see a new Peach Fuzz product to cover this. One that is fully featured with body hairs for all sections of the body. Such a product would go a long way to tackling some of these issues  Peach fuzz would also take that sharp edge off Daz models, which is another hint smething is off. No matter how high the resolution is, skin does not look that sharp.

I think gloss maps need to focus on the areas that may be somewhat oily, like nose or forehead, rather than making a noise map that is fairly even and universal. Such maps should try to be more dynamic, and tone down the areas that don't gloss so much. The key is to get this balance right without them looking chalky.

I know that some people like glossy skin, and it can look really cool for CGI, but its not real. Look at this stock photo. There are few skiny spots on her skin, and the ones that can be seen are extremely subtle, even though the photo is well lit. Perhaps a PA could include 2 sets of gloss maps to cover this, if they have time.

 

Here is a shinier face of a woman who is really surprised to be in a Daz Studio thread. But notice this shine is not on her whole face. Her cheeks are rather matte, perhaps due to makeup. Which is common, most blush makeups do not shine. Eye makeup might shine, but not often blush.

 

There are exceptions, of course, like this extremely happy man who just found out RareStone released Minto. But even he does not have the gloss factor many Daz models do.

 

BTW, gazing at random stock photos can be abnormally entertaining for reasons I cannot explain.

 

"Stock" photos are not the best place to find people looking "normal" - as most people who pose for and/or submit images to shock sites try to look as good as possible (so make-up, powders, etc). Try looking for unretouched photos (which are EXTREMELY hard to find these days and harder and harder to find every day - when nearly every single picture posted online gets retouched before being uploaded). 

Many people tend to have skin that's a bit shiny unless they're wearing fresh makeup or powder. And sometimes even then the shininess is there. 

There are also a lot of other factors that can contribute to how matte or shiny a person's skin is and it can vary greatly from person to person. So just saying "glossy skin is not real" isn't accurate for many.

nonesuch00

I think DAZ does good, better than ever with Genesis 8, but the glossiness tends to make the renders I  see in the DAZ Gallery look like a flat milky mocha coffee brown too often. It is probably just that the renders are being overlit or underlit.

I've seen FHD and 4K real life video that does indeed have the sharpness along the edges that DAZ Studio renders can have, not just on skin but clothings and everything else. The effect was somewhat disorienting as it causes a collage type visual effect that I didn't get in real life. It had to do a doubletake to make sure it wasn't a 3D app of some sort that created the video.

outrider42

What I really meant is how uniformly glossy Daz skins often are. That is not real. The arms on a Daz character have the same glossy look as the face. Take a look at the woman at the bottom, while she has some gloss in her face, her arm is completely matte. But even in her face the gloss you see is greatly toned down compared to what you see in the average Daz render. In the middle shot, note specifically where the gloss is, it is limited to her nose, forehead, and a small spot on her cheek, and they are small spots. If she was a Daz character, that gloss would be all over each line of her face. Even in the first shot, the whole right side of her face is not reflecting much light, even though there must be at least a dozen cameras and very bright lights everywhere. Now look back at the Daz models posted here. The glossiness is fairly even across nearly all parts of the body, and this does not make sense. Even pictures of athletes do not exhibit this. Sweat is generally confined to certain areas. Gloss maps should attempt to mimic this. Noise generation is too evenly distributed on these bump maps.

Gregorius

Thanks for the feedback, Bluejaunte.  Yes, the difference between those renders I posted is subtle, and you're probably right that tone mapping and/or filmic color space is probably more of a finishing touch than a critical part of the equation.  Still, I rather like some of the results I'm getting.  I've even figured out a way to turn a normal JPG into a close approximation of an HDR image!  Your point about having HDR texture maps from the start is a good thought, so I'll be looking into that very soon.  For now, here's a sample of what my latest tinkerings with filmic tone mapping can yield.

nonesuch00

outrider42 said:

What I really meant is how uniformly glossy Daz skins often are. That is not real. The arms on a Daz character have the same glossy look as the face. Take a look at the woman at the bottom, while she has some gloss in her face, her arm is completely matte. But even in her face the gloss you see is greatly toned down compared to what you see in the average Daz render. In the middle shot, note specifically where the gloss is, it is limited to her nose, forehead, and a small spot on her cheek, and they are small spots. If she was a Daz character, that gloss would be all over each line of her face. Even in the first shot, the whole right side of her face is not reflecting much light, even though there must be at least a dozen cameras and very bright lights everywhere. Now look back at the Daz models posted here. The glossiness is fairly even across nearly all parts of the body, and this does not make sense. Even pictures of athletes do not exhibit this. Sweat is generally confined to certain areas. Gloss maps should attempt to mimic this. Noise generation is too evenly distributed on these bump maps.

When I look at DAZ originals maps meant to convey glossiness they are correct for average people but the most popular images in the galleries invariably have altered those original settings to look like settings for female oil wrestling. Darker skins also more easily show the lighting contrasts of glossiness which is why in the DAZ forums you'll often see people stating such skin materials are more realistic when they are not. But it is those lighting and material tricks to exagerate details is what gets the likes so like spiky metal bikinis those techniques will continue. 

It's odd that with the sophistication of PBR that render artists are resorting to techniques that exagerate contrast to reductively recreate 16 color high contrast comic book style images. Oh well.

Gr00vus

Eyes are usually a giveaway. Not just the shaders either. Daz models don't have the necessary geometry(or HD morphs) to get realistic looking eyes most of the time - both the eyes themselves and the eyelids.

wolf359

What I really meant is how uniformly glossy Daz skins often are. That is not real. The arms on a Daz character have the same glossy look as the face. Take a look at the woman at the bottom, while she has some gloss in her face, her arm is completely matte. But even in her face the gloss you see is greatly toned down compared to what you see in the average Daz render. In the middle shot, note specifically where the gloss is, it is limited to her nose, forehead, and a small spot on her cheek, and they are small spots. If she was a Daz character, that gloss would be all over each line of her face. Even in the first shot, the whole right side of her face is not reflecting much light, even though there must be at least a dozen cameras and very bright lights everywhere. Now look back at the Daz models posted here. The glossiness is fairly even across nearly all parts of the body, and this does not make sense. Even pictures of athletes do not exhibit this. Sweat is generally confined to certain areas. Gloss maps should attempt to mimic this. Noise generation is too evenly distributed on these bump maps. 

Thank you!
This uniform distribution is also a major realism killer with SSS.

The awesome V4 "Vanilla Sky" textures by Syyd ( from RDNA)
included a "Scatter map" to more realisticly distribute subsurface scattering.

Most of the  Daz renders, I see with SSS, appear like wax Figures  to me.

 

 

"Eyes are usually a giveaway. Not just the shaders either. Daz models don't have the necessary geometry(or HD morphs) to get realistic looking eyes most of the time - both the eyes themselves and the eyelids."
 

 

Indeed they eyes on most genesis models are epic fail for realism

here is a Maya model render

 
Certainly not the typical idealized fetish chick we see 
from most Daz originals however the entire eye/lid geometry
is more realistc than most Daz models I have seen in promos at least

nicstt

Asymmetry is important; I use the morphs I created a lot to break it; (they're on my deviant art page).

Divamakeup said:

Here's one of the few images that made me look twice and had to really LOOK at it before I realized it was a 3D render. On first glance though, it had me fooled for a minute. 

The body folds help. And I think the fact that it's kind of an unnatural awkard pose actually helps "sell it" as well - as most real people trying to sit in that pose will look a bit stiff or unnatural; so the fact that it's not really a normal pose that someone would sit in, helps - as we don't often see people sitting like that so we don't have a "quick reference" file in our memories to instantly compare it to other images we've seen with real people in that pose. The fact that the face is partially inverted also helps "sell it", I think, as we don't often see faces that are up-side-down. So our brain doesn't immediately recognise artificialness that would be easier to spot with a face that's vertical or in a position we normally see faces in. 

I think the lump on the back definitely doesn't look right to me, and the hair is definite give away. Still, just browsing past it among other "photos" it wouldn't jump out immediately (at least to me) as 3D. 

I'm sat here telling myself it isn't real; and i have to keep saying that. The only thing that makes me think 'hmm' is the water (a little) and no deformation of the bum cheeks; even if she's resting on the bones, there should be a little.

Excellent job on the hair. The bump on the back, well folks have weird bits in real-life, so that is believeable.

nicstt

RawArt said:

You also have to bear in mind that a lousy screen cap from a compressed video will hide alot of faults.

If you were to do a render of the same quality, it could easily looks are real as the screen cap.

But a big part of getting images to look life-like is in the poseing. Alot of the pose sets here are great for giving a basic pose, but for any situation, there are subtleties to posing which can turn a manequin into a person, or vice verse. Things like eye position, where the person is looking, and how that relates to their hands, or their stance, etc. All these elements have to work together, and when they do, you can have a very real looking shot, rather than a stiff render. (provided you do have good skin and lighting, etc as you already pointed out)

 

Rawn

agreed.

When we're doing a render, we should remember that we're telling a story. The character's pose, and interaction with the scene will help tell the story, and are essential to it, along with good lighting and perspective.

... Not forgetting depth of field; if that is missing, is screams 3D - which is sometimes misleading.

cclesue

I long ago figured the best way to make my models look real was to use a real one.

j cade

wolf359 said:

What I really meant is how uniformly glossy Daz skins often are. That is not real. The arms on a Daz character have the same glossy look as the face. Take a look at the woman at the bottom, while she has some gloss in her face, her arm is completely matte. But even in her face the gloss you see is greatly toned down compared to what you see in the average Daz render. In the middle shot, note specifically where the gloss is, it is limited to her nose, forehead, and a small spot on her cheek, and they are small spots. If she was a Daz character, that gloss would be all over each line of her face. Even in the first shot, the whole right side of her face is not reflecting much light, even though there must be at least a dozen cameras and very bright lights everywhere. Now look back at the Daz models posted here. The glossiness is fairly even across nearly all parts of the body, and this does not make sense. Even pictures of athletes do not exhibit this. Sweat is generally confined to certain areas. Gloss maps should attempt to mimic this. Noise generation is too evenly distributed on these bump maps. 

Thank you!
This uniform distribution is also a major realism killer with SSS.

The awesome V4 "Vanilla Sky" textures by Syyd ( from RDNA)
included a "Scatter map" to more realisticly distribute subsurface scattering.

Most of the  Daz renders, I see with SSS, appear like wax Figures  to me.

 

 

"Eyes are usually a giveaway. Not just the shaders either. Daz models don't have the necessary geometry(or HD morphs) to get realistic looking eyes most of the time - both the eyes themselves and the eyelids."
 

 

Indeed they eyes on most genesis models are epic fail for realism

here is a Maya model render

 
Certainly not the typical idealized fetish chick we see 
from most Daz originals however the entire eye/lid geometry
is more realistc than most Daz models I have seen in promos at least

Generally speaking the problem with SSS being waxy is less that you need a scatter map to control how much SSS there is, but that the scattering distance is way (way, way, way) too high. The proper values (especially now that there's chromatic SSS which does basically the same thing as a 3 layer SSS shader) and you can have full SSS glowing ears, and no light leaking through the nose (although in addition to the not so great default eye settings, the ears are a of most figures are too thick which isnt great for those nice backlit ears)

 

This actually gave me an nice excuse to experiment, so for your perusal iray 100% SSS no diffuse, no super wax look. didn't actually take that long to set up, and ignore the eyes because I really didn't bother with them (they don't have proper refraction or good SSS) also still grainy because full SSS is GD slow in Iray

 

3 renders: strong from the side to show that light is mostly blocked by the nose (I have checked my own RealWorldTM nose and it doesn't block strong light completely), light from the front similar to the image you provided, and that same front light + rim light to show the ear glow

 

More bloviating by me on eyes: I've said it before and I'll say it again, the biggest problem with eyes in DS is not the geometry (the defaults aren't great but with the cornea bulge morph and an iris depth morph the geometry is perfectly reasonable). No, the biggest problem for good eyes is Iray doesn't let you do proper refraction without casting shadows. Proper refraction is an absolute must for correct looking eye and there is just no way to do it in Iray without shadowing the iris and depending on your setup the entire sclera as well.

agent unawares

j cade said:

This actually gave me an nice excuse to experiment, so for your perusal iray 100% SSS no diffuse, no super wax look. didn't actually take that long to set up, and ignore the eyes because I really didn't bother with them (they don't have proper refraction or good SSS) also still grainy because full SSS is GD slow in Iray

I assume the black speckles are from that stupid chromatic SSS bug. This is the one drawback I've found to trying to set up real-world type SSS in Iray.

j cade said:

3 renders: strong from the side to show that light is mostly blocked by the nose (I have checked my own RealWorldTM nose and it doesn't block strong light completely)

Really realistic noses probably need a skull to block light.

nonesuch00

j cade said:

wolf359 said:

What I really meant is how uniformly glossy Daz skins often are. That is not real. The arms on a Daz character have the same glossy look as the face. Take a look at the woman at the bottom, while she has some gloss in her face, her arm is completely matte. But even in her face the gloss you see is greatly toned down compared to what you see in the average Daz render. In the middle shot, note specifically where the gloss is, it is limited to her nose, forehead, and a small spot on her cheek, and they are small spots. If she was a Daz character, that gloss would be all over each line of her face. Even in the first shot, the whole right side of her face is not reflecting much light, even though there must be at least a dozen cameras and very bright lights everywhere. Now look back at the Daz models posted here. The glossiness is fairly even across nearly all parts of the body, and this does not make sense. Even pictures of athletes do not exhibit this. Sweat is generally confined to certain areas. Gloss maps should attempt to mimic this. Noise generation is too evenly distributed on these bump maps. 

Thank you!
This uniform distribution is also a major realism killer with SSS.

The awesome V4 "Vanilla Sky" textures by Syyd ( from RDNA)
included a "Scatter map" to more realisticly distribute subsurface scattering.

Most of the  Daz renders, I see with SSS, appear like wax Figures  to me.

 

 

"Eyes are usually a giveaway. Not just the shaders either. Daz models don't have the necessary geometry(or HD morphs) to get realistic looking eyes most of the time - both the eyes themselves and the eyelids."
 

 

Indeed they eyes on most genesis models are epic fail for realism

here is a Maya model render

 
Certainly not the typical idealized fetish chick we see 
from most Daz originals however the entire eye/lid geometry
is more realistc than most Daz models I have seen in promos at least

Generally speaking the problem with SSS being waxy is less that you need a scatter map to control how much SSS there is, but that the scattering distance is way (way, way, way) too high. The proper values (especially now that there's chromatic SSS which does basically the same thing as a 3 layer SSS shader) and you can have full SSS glowing ears, and no light leaking through the nose (although in addition to the not so great default eye settings, the ears are a of most figures are too thick which isnt great for those nice backlit ears)

 

This actually gave me an nice excuse to experiment, so for your perusal iray 100% SSS no diffuse, no super wax look. didn't actually take that long to set up, and ignore the eyes because I really didn't bother with them (they don't have proper refraction or good SSS) also still grainy because full SSS is GD slow in Iray

 

3 renders: strong from the side to show that light is mostly blocked by the nose (I have checked my own RealWorldTM nose and it doesn't block strong light completely), light from the front similar to the image you provided, and that same front light + rim light to show the ear glow

 

More bloviating by me on eyes: I've said it before and I'll say it again, the biggest problem with eyes in DS is not the geometry (the defaults aren't great but with the cornea bulge morph and an iris depth morph the geometry is perfectly reasonable). No, the biggest problem for good eyes is Iray doesn't let you do proper refraction without casting shadows. Proper refraction is an absolute must for correct looking eye and there is just no way to do it in Iray without shadowing the iris and depending on your setup the entire sclera as well.

Mucch more real looking than the waxy Maya girl, although she looks good too.

PhilW

There are many great points in this thread. My own view is that it is (unfortunately!) a combination of many factors, and they all need to be "right" to achieve anything approaching true photorealism - and even top movie studios have a tough time really achieving this.  The problem is that we are extremely sensitive to what is "right" when it comes to faces. Other things - household objects, buildings, even cars (although some people are extremely picky on this last one) we accept a "close-enough" image to be the real thing, and small variations don't really matter. That is not true when it comes to people and faces especially. That is why we have the concept of the "uncanny valley" in that it seems that the closer you get to achieve photorealism, the more "off" or uncomfortable the image appears. Only by getting everything spot on - skin, eyes, modelling, hair, lighting, pose, clothing, etc. can we approach a really photoreal image.  It is something that interests me greatly - and I have seen great progress made with Daz Studio over the last few years. We are not there yet, but we are closer than we have ever been and I have no doubt that between developments in the DS software, iRay rendering and the work of many talented PAs and artists, we will continue to get closer still.

Chezjuan

When I first started with DAZ, I was impressed with how real things looked. After using it for a few months, it definitely looked less real to me than it did when I started. I chalk that up to knowing the product. It's like how I can see an item in the store and go "Oh, that's Tesla3d" without looking at any details - I've seen enough of their products that I know the style.

Many of my friends who don't do 3D on the computer are amazed with how real things look. However, when I showed one of my renders to a sketch-artist friend, she said "it looks good, but I can tell it's not real."

In my opinion, one thing that makes many things look off is how perfect everything is. Looking at my desk right now, there are a lot of small imperfections (dust, a glass ring or two, dings in the wood) that give it character. Even when it's clean, the dings and a scratch or two are there. Most 3D models don't have that - they're clean, smooth, no imperfections. Even though people won't see the imperfections when they take a quick glance at a real object, I think they register on some level. 

With human characters in renders, the thing that gives most of them away to me is the expression. Something is just not quite right. You could have the perfect shin, with all the right settings and lighting, but one look at the face and I can say "that's probably a render."  I can't say exactly why, and I have seen some renders that pass the expression test, but darned if I know how to replicate that yet.

3Diva

Chezjuan said:

When I first started with DAZ, I was impressed with how real things looked. After using it for a few months, it definitely looked less real to me than it did when I started. I chalk that up to knowing the product. 

I totally agree. I think the more we work with 3D the more we can spot it. Several of my renders have "fooled" my family, but to most people working with 3D they are absolutely not even close to being fooled.

3Diva

PhilW said:

We are not there yet, but we are closer than we have ever been and I have no doubt that between developments in the DS software, iRay rendering and the work of many talented PAs and artists, we will continue to get closer still.

I agree, we're not there yet, but I'm tickled pink with the progress made toward realistic looking characters. Even just the past two years that I've been working with 3D figures and Daz Studio I've seen a big improvement toward realism with the figures. And while we're not there yet, it's really fun, imo, to see how far we can push it. :) We'll get there eventually! Daz Studio is awesome and the figures they release are getting better and better.

 

 

3Diva

We're not there but I'm having fun getting as close as I can. heheh I think maybe in the next few years we might get there. For now though, here's another attempt:

While we're not there yet, the trying can be fun! :)

 

Gregorius

On the subject of eyes, I have to agree that they're likely the most difficult part, especially since they command a disproportionate amount of the typical viewer's focus.  For whatever it's worth, here's my best work with G8F as rendered in Poser SuperFly.  I think, as J Cade pointed out, it helps to dial up the Cornea Bulge morph.  Since Fresnel reflection and refraction (probably the most important thing shader-wise) is based on incidence angle, the bulge can have a noticeable effect.



 

PhilW

Yes cornea bulge is hugely important, both for refraction as you say but also for reflections. Most characters have it set too flat by default. I have also created my own eye morphs which I think give a better bulge shape and make the iris slightly concave so that it catches the light slightly better. And make sure that the eyes have something to reflect - an HDRI environment is great for that.

PhilW

Here is an example of as close as I can get to photorealism at the moment - it is set up in Carrara, I think one of the big differences is using Carrara's strand based hair, and then rendered using Octane Render for Carrara. I think Octane has the edge, but iRay is very good with the right settings and lighting. And I am making an effort to get as close to strand-based hair as I reasonably can in Daz Studio too, with my Paige Hair product and others in the pipeline.  There was also a little postwork to tidy up a couple of small areas and make a small adjustment to exposure and contrast, but this is pretty close to the original render.

fastbike1

But then the scene screams CG 

cclesue said:

I long ago figured the best way to make my models look real was to use a real one.

 

j cade

agent unawares said:

j cade said:

This actually gave me an nice excuse to experiment, so for your perusal iray 100% SSS no diffuse, no super wax look. didn't actually take that long to set up, and ignore the eyes because I really didn't bother with them (they don't have proper refraction or good SSS) also still grainy because full SSS is GD slow in Iray

I assume the black speckles are from that stupid chromatic SSS bug. This is the one drawback I've found to trying to set up real-world type SSS in Iray.

Yep. Chromatic is great from a realism perspective but man... fiddling with it can be frustrating. It's slow and that little bug pops up with irritating frequency. FWIW the third one didn't have it (I think because that one had some very dim environment settings set to visible, if I remember correctly it pops up when there isn't an environment or its set to render transparent) but yeah super irritating, hopefully next version of DS/Iray fixes that one. Also the full SSS/chromatic setup is sooooooooo slow. And I'm not exactly an impatient person.

agent unawares said:

 

j cade said:

3 renders: strong from the side to show that light is mostly blocked by the nose (I have checked my own RealWorldTM nose and it doesn't block strong light completely)

Really realistic noses probably need a skull to block light.

Theoretically yes, in 99.8% of lighting situations it probably shouldn't make too much of a difference as long as the material setup is "good enough" unless there is super super strong lighting from one side and nothing else any marginal difference is probably going to be missed. Also sss bounces light around so much that it makes the effect even less distinct, hold up a flashlight to your fingers and you don't see a bone even if the light is bright enough to shine all the way through (I do a lot of test renders at night with a mirror and a flashlight in case anyone is wondering)

agent unawares

j cade said:

 

agent unawares said:

 

j cade said:

3 renders: strong from the side to show that light is mostly blocked by the nose (I have checked my own RealWorldTM nose and it doesn't block strong light completely)

Really realistic noses probably need a skull to block light.

Theoretically yes, in 99.8% of lighting situations it probably shouldn't make too much of a difference as long as the material setup is "good enough" unless there is super super strong lighting from one side and nothing else any marginal difference is probably going to be missed. Also sss bounces light around so much that it makes the effect even less distinct, hold up a flashlight to your fingers and you don't see a bone even if the light is bright enough to shine all the way through (I do a lot of test renders at night with a mirror and a flashlight in case anyone is wondering)

You're right.

j cade

Also FWIW here are some of my best practice eye settings, gross fiddly settings that are an absolute pain to setup (and the new G8 eye setup makes it an even more archane setup. Seriously: the eye moisture mat zone has the sclera textures, the sclera still has to be sort of visible, just more translucently sss-y and the iris has to use the diffuse overlay)

But still a setup that technically anyone* can do. No custom geometry or textures (well, I mean, the eyelashes are, but that's not the eyes)

 

 

*with the time and obsession to fiddle endlessly with settings

 

But seriously, eyes are awful. They are super, super SSS-y and its so painful to get the whites gelatinous enough looking and thats before worriying reflections and refraction.

jim_doria

This is a great thread! Fantastic info. But there is one element I haven't seen mentioned and I'm kind of surprised, as it seems a bit obvious to me.

Maybe the problem isn't just the model. Maybe it's the lack of a CAMERA.

Renders are computed images, where every light ray is accounted for, but the images we associate with "photorealism" all come from a mechanical device. This device imparts certain qualities and imperfections to an image that a computer algorithm does not.

First off, there is no such thing as a perfect lens. There are always going to be slight aberrations and achromatic artifacts in photography. These influence the image in incredibly subtle ways.

Then there's the way depth of field varies over the image, even in an extreme closeup. It's almost impossible to have the entire image be in perfect, correct focus. But this is what rendering often gives us, and even with simulated DOF, the blending from in-focus to not-quite-in-focus is too uniform, too precise. Look at the stock image posted earlier of the African-American man and note at how many different points the image focuses softens due to DOF. Depending on the path the light ray takes through the lens, the DOF may be different even for parts of the image the same distance from the focal plane. The renderer's computed "one-size-fits-all" DOF is flattening some complexity that would normally be there in the image, cueing our brains to it's reality. 

Finally, the computer gives us sharper edges than can exist when the images is being recorded by sampling a series of more-or-less random photons striking the sensor / film. Light bending around the edge of an object, even a high-contrast edge, is subject to some scattering / softening. You almost never have an edge that's truly sharp - in fact, the JPEG algorithm can actually have trouble with such edges, because they don't occur in real photos. I think this is because scattering of photons around an edge is partly a chaotic process - like when you pour water and most of it splashes to about the same height, but the occasional drop or two splashes much higher or files much farther than the others. In a render, the path of every ray is deterministic. Light does not bleed from behind the edge, or mix with other light being scattered through the scene.

Not to say that all the other stuff isn't important. Skin, the eyes, shadows, it's all essential. But I think at least part of what's going on is that our brains are detecting missing cues from our long experience of looking at images created by light rays diffracting through a lens and striking a small plane - which is not how our software does it.

bluejaunte

j cade said:

Also FWIW here are some of my best practice eye settings, gross fiddly settings that are an absolute pain to setup (and the new G8 eye setup makes it an even more archane setup. Seriously: the eye moisture mat zone has the sclera textures, the sclera still has to be sort of visible, just more translucently sss-y and the iris has to use the diffuse overlay)

But still a setup that technically anyone* can do. No custom geometry or textures (well, I mean, the eyelashes are, but that's not the eyes)

 

 

*with the time and obsession to fiddle endlessly with settings

 

But seriously, eyes are awful. They are super, super SSS-y and its so painful to get the whites gelatinous enough looking and thats before worriying reflections and refraction.

Very nice! Lacrimals transition could use a bit of work if I had to complain about something.

nonesuch00

PhilW said:

Here is an example of as close as I can get to photorealism at the moment - it is set up in Carrara, I think one of the big differences is using Carrara's strand based hair, and then rendered using Octane Render for Carrara. I think Octane has the edge, but iRay is very good with the right settings and lighting. And I am making an effort to get as close to strand-based hair as I reasonably can in Daz Studio too, with my Paige Hair product and others in the pipeline.  There was also a little postwork to tidy up a couple of small areas and make a small adjustment to exposure and contrast, but this is pretty close to the original render.

excellent

PhilW

nonesuch00 - thank you! I was expecting people to be picking it apart to say what could be done better.

Butch

PhilW said:

nonesuch00 - thank you! I was expecting people to be picking it apart to say what could be done better.

Well, now that you mention it...     The only things I can pick on are the ones that, at this time, can't easily be fixed.   Not that I'm aware of, anyway. 

There's no stray hair floating in the air currents and, this is what I dislike about daz fibre hair in general, it's very uniform.  Apart from those, you have created a remarkably splending image, PhilW