IRAY Photorealism?

1293032343568

Comments

  • I'm in need of some lights and render settings to test textures. I use papertiger's a lot, but I have run into a problem. His light sets are all point lights. And I've noticed that if a point light (rectangular) is not large enough then usually specularity below the waist line kind of just goes away. This is when dual lobe shaders are in use. Old style specular doesn't seem to have a problem.

  • My suggesiton is change the SSS color to desaturate it, or desaturate the textures in an image editor . The SSS isn't complicated, its really just one color to mess with. To get a realistic color I like to compare with a good photoscan model (like digital emily) by rendering side by side with it (but turn off transluency on the photoscan model first)

    i prefer throwing stuff into Blender because theres less factors to worry about there. 

    Thanks, @davidtriune. I played with it some more, using a G8 skin and figured out how small changes need to be to get big results. With J. Cade's set up, I could get good results, but the only thing that had a significant impact is the transluency setting. Chaning SSS colors didn't do a lot (or the results were bad). Tiny changes in the translucency color (with the map) were better. 

  • Leonides02Leonides02 Posts: 1,379
    edited May 2020
    RayDAnt said:

    Does it supremely annoy anyone else that lighting so drastically changes how DARK a character appears? 

    We need high translucency to achieve realism in iray, but that leads to lighting having a hugely dramatic impact on whether a character is pale or dark. :-\

    Speaking as someone with extensive experience in studio lighting for large format film/digital still photography, that's kinda how it actually works. smiley

    Really? Maybe so, but I don't see how having a Irish-pale character in a sunlit room would make them appear as if they're from Sicily.

    EDIT: I wonder if white balance has a lot to do with this? In traditional photography I know it does...

     

    Post edited by Leonides02 on
  • j cadej cade Posts: 2,310
    edited May 2020

     

    Well I've discovered a great way to solve the difficulty of rendering eyes... lighting so dramatic you cant see them! more seriously, I think nice dramatic lighting can have similar benefits to the polaroid style, in that it give you an excuse to obscure certain details, especially if you're not looking at it full size(also why I like dof no one will know I quartered the size of all the texture in the bg)

    This render still needs a hair more cooking, and I may tweak some things yet (though the nice thing about compositing anyway is that its easy to just rerender part of the image)

    more seriously, I'm starting to render clothing I'm actual happy with I think I coulds make a square crop of the area of the tie and the vest and it would be hard to tell it was cgi (still not satsfied with the sleeve tho) also not sure if I'm completey showing it here but underbelly came with some real nice normal maps, I plan to spend some time examining them to see what I can learn from them.

     

    bonus! despite this being an 'indoor' scene it actually renders pretty fast, I think I need to learn from this because the lighting is more faked rather than going entirely naturalistic as I usually tend to do, but film and photography does the same all the time so why have I not been?

    under 2fin.jpg
    1890 x 1200 - 577K
    Post edited by j cade on
  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500
    j cade said:

     

    Well I've discovered a great way to solve the difficulty of rendering eyes... lighting so dramatic you cant see them! more seriously, I think nice dramatic lighting can have similar benefits to the polaroid style, in that it give you an excuse to obscure certain details, especially if you're not looking at it full size(also why I like dof no one will know I quartered the size of all the texture in the bg)

     

    This render still needs a hair more cooking, and I may tweak some things yet (though the nice thing about compositing anyway is that its easy to just rerender part of the image)

    more seriously, I'm starting to render clothing I'm actual happy with I think I coulds make a square crop of the area of the tie and the vest and it would be hard to tell it was cgi (still not satsfied with the sleeve tho) ...

     

    Vest & tie look unusually like fabric - great job there. Not convinced with the shirt collar. Maybe it is the way it looks too uniformly circular or maybe it needs to be slightly closer to the neck towrds the back? I'm nor sure what it is but I've never seen a shirt collar that looks realistic yet.

  • j cadej cade Posts: 2,310
    marble said:
    j cade said:

     

    Well I've discovered a great way to solve the difficulty of rendering eyes... lighting so dramatic you cant see them! more seriously, I think nice dramatic lighting can have similar benefits to the polaroid style, in that it give you an excuse to obscure certain details, especially if you're not looking at it full size(also why I like dof no one will know I quartered the size of all the texture in the bg)

     

    This render still needs a hair more cooking, and I may tweak some things yet (though the nice thing about compositing anyway is that its easy to just rerender part of the image)

    more seriously, I'm starting to render clothing I'm actual happy with I think I coulds make a square crop of the area of the tie and the vest and it would be hard to tell it was cgi (still not satsfied with the sleeve tho) ...

     

    Vest & tie look unusually like fabric - great job there. Not convinced with the shirt collar. Maybe it is the way it looks too uniformly circular or maybe it needs to be slightly closer to the neck towrds the back? I'm nor sure what it is but I've never seen a shirt collar that looks realistic yet.

    I think the problem might be that real shrt collars can have some of the signifiers we associate with cg. a propper suit can have a starched collar: sharp crisp lines and no wrinkles which are also traits we associate with cg clothes.  look at this for instance It aready almost looks cg

    while the shirt is more rumpled in my image, given the quality of the rest of the clothes it would have started out starched so making it too rumpled looks wrong, because its not what we see in the real world, but unrumpled also looks wrong because the afformentioned cg signifiers. I also considered painting the normal map to have a more wrinkly seam but dressier shirts don't have those

     

    ... of course a more obvious problem is that this is a shirt that goes with a tie but the distance from where the last button/hole to the top of the collar is abnormally long and lacks the sticky out bit of most collared shirts youd wear with a tie.. collared shirts are so fiddly.

     

    I'm glad you mentioned the tie though. Because its probably the thing I spent the longest on (although a lot of that was getting distracted making a tiling texture for the pattern which was pretty unnecessary, but hey he now has a tie pattern after a design by Koloman Moser and that makes me happy) I also heaily morphed the tie as its original shape was super flat.

    On the other hand I think all i did for the vest was turn up the bump slightly? Srsly Luthbel makes some fantastic stuff. Despite my quibbles about the shirt, I use it a lot (frequently turned into plaid so that my characters can dress like me)

  • Leonides02Leonides02 Posts: 1,379
    j cade said:

     

    Well I've discovered a great way to solve the difficulty of rendering eyes... lighting so dramatic you cant see them! more seriously, I think nice dramatic lighting can have similar benefits to the polaroid style, in that it give you an excuse to obscure certain details, especially if you're not looking at it full size(also why I like dof no one will know I quartered the size of all the texture in the bg)

    This render still needs a hair more cooking, and I may tweak some things yet (though the nice thing about compositing anyway is that its easy to just rerender part of the image)

    more seriously, I'm starting to render clothing I'm actual happy with I think I coulds make a square crop of the area of the tie and the vest and it would be hard to tell it was cgi (still not satsfied with the sleeve tho) also not sure if I'm completey showing it here but underbelly came with some real nice normal maps, I plan to spend some time examining them to see what I can learn from them.

     

    bonus! despite this being an 'indoor' scene it actually renders pretty fast, I think I need to learn from this because the lighting is more faked rather than going entirely naturalistic as I usually tend to do, but film and photography does the same all the time so why have I not been?

    Very nice render. His clothing is excellent!

    Was this iray or Blender, J?

  • rillarilla Posts: 57
    notiusweb said:

    I think it should be possible to do 2 things in Iray: 1) render a real-looking human, but also 2) render a photo-real looking 'mannequin' - which needn't have any realistic attributes or details at all.

    Did you notice that some renders look flat like toons, or paintings...I think these are using painted maps.  I thin kwe are finding photo-real ones are using photo-textures. 

    There's some ingredient, or phenomenon, in photos...what the heck is it!

    One reason for this is that 3d rendered images are too crisp... take a real photo, zoom in at the pixel level and look at the edge of something in the photo, like the arm.  You'll notice all kinds of color distortion and blending between the arm and what's behind it.  And I'm not talking about anti-aliasing... that of course does smooth out edges by averaging with neighboring pixels...  but real photos have a mysterious yet perceivable 'blur' between elements, even very sharp edges.  I believe this is one reason eyes are such a dead giveaway as to a rendered image... the lids, etc, just are way too sharp, even when antialiased.  Anyhow, I usually run a chromatic abberation filter to help offset this issue...     Also, major difference is amount of detail.  In the real world, even the most simple scene has incredibly amount of details, little variations, nuances, etc.  Hard to capture this in 3D, but can be done.  Take a photo a face and blow it up... see all the colors, weird patterns, etc...   then take a decent 3D 'photorealistic' image of a face and blow it up...  you can see the difference...     When you get it to point where the difference is unnoticeable.. then you've hit nirvana ;)

     

     

    Could the "too crisp" in part be due to humans being in constant motion? subject and camera operator? The best Daz renders have always looked like wax statues to me or dead bodies. I tried the low quality jpeg setting in Photoshop and BOOM! That made the difference because the edges became blurred and made it come alive. But even at a high quality setting the edges should be blurred because of constant subtle human motion, even with a high shutter speed I would assume. No living human can sit still like a Daz character.

    Also, thanks for sharing all of your knowledge. This thread is amazing! This made my weekend! 

  • rillarilla Posts: 57
    edited May 2020

    My latest with brighter lighting and higher quality resolution (i.e. less 'old photo' style).  

     

    Absolutely Amazing!

    I'm wondering if using a spotlight as the sun would work instead of using HDRI for outside lighting. Is that possible?

     

    This is a quick render I did using your methods. Obviously the hair looks fake because I didn't even adjust it correctly, but I was shocked at the outcome of the regardless because it only took me about 5 minutes to throw together.  

     

     

    image

    Jeff-contrast-medium-chr-abb_Fotor-crop.jpg
    560 x 560 - 154K
    Post edited by rilla on
  • rillarilla Posts: 57
    Padone said:

    @Siciliano1969 I have not the time nor the skills to make good photorealistic pictures, at least in my opinion. I love what others do and sometime I feel I can give them suggestions in areas where I have some knowledge. Specifically I believe Jeff can improve in lighting.

    @Masterstroke I gave a look at the european apartment set and I agree it comes with good lights. I can't see those lights used in the pictures posted by Jeff though, it looks like he is using just the single point light.

    @bluejaunte That is a very interesting example you got here. Indeed that room looks poorly lit with no windows plus the walls are dark so there's very little light bouncing or environment light. I assume in those conditions the camera flash was the main light source. And indeed there's graininess in the picture that is probably due to a high iso film to compensate for the lack of lights. As for this being a common scenario for point and click cameras I don't think so, I rather believe this is an exceptional case.

    EDIT. Below there are examples of photos with a teenager in bedroom, there are hard shadows from the flash but they are mitigated by the environment light, as it is in common lighting conditions.

    https://depositphotos.com/179710724/stock-photo-smiling-girl-sitting-armchair-bedroom.html

    https://depositphotos.com/190031204/stock-photo-teenage-boy-using-smartphone-bedroom.html

    https://depositphotos.com/254318634/stock-photo-worried-teenager-sitting-bed-books.html

    I don't think these are low-fi flash photos. These are more or less proffessionally shot stock photos. Here's another one from the same site as before: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Snapshots-Color-1950s-1960s-64.jpg

    Looks like the flash is more to the left here, but the harsh shadows are there. They're brighter but if you look at the mirror on the wall on the right you see that very dark thin shadow again. With the limited dynamic range of old school or low quality cameras, it is easily possible that a harsh shadow ends up being completely black, just as much as is it possible to have completely white parts.

    I think you might be confusing aethetics with realism. Jeff isn't really doing anything unrealistic here, just something that isn't pretty to look at. From a photography point of few at least.

    All,

    Great discussion.  Good points, observations and recommendations.  For what it's worth, I do intentionally go for the 'old 70/80's' style flash photograhy.  I do so, for a few reasons: 1) I think they convey a more 'amateur', 'real' look vice a staged photo-shoot...and that is the exact mood I go for, and 2) despite my best efforts, bright ambient lighting, or strong directional lighting, or any shadows on the figure itself tends to reduce the realism of my characters.   See below for an example of the exact same scene from my previous postings but with a different lighting set up.  You can see it doesn't pull off the same level of realism. 

    Agreed I did overdo the bloom effect from laptop and TV... partially by design as the bloom intersecting with the character figure makes the work seem more seamless and adds realism.  I'll watch that more carefully in the future.  

    Bluejante - btw, your characters are THE BEST!!!!  I hope you have more in the works! 

    Parsamohsneirad - sorry, my message was about how you said it had 'reverse uncanny valley' :)

    _Jeff

     

     

    What do you use to make the tv and laptop light up?

    This image tells me that a scene can have other lights in the background, but the Daz character has to have a main light from the front that by far overpowers other lights in the scene. What is the scientific explanation for the realism falling apart once the main light is not coming from the camera's angle? 

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    rilla said:

    My latest with brighter lighting and higher quality resolution (i.e. less 'old photo' style).  

     

    Absolutely Amazing!

    I'm wondering if using a spotlight as the sun would work instead of using HDRI for outside lighting. Is that possible?

     

    This is a quick render I did using your methods. Obviously the hair looks fake because I didn't even adjust it correctly, but I was shocked at the outcome of the regardless because it only took me about 5 minutes to throw together.  

     

     

     

    If I want to cast a strong beam of light into a room, I always use a Spotlight placed outside the window to generate that effect (as opposed to using HDRI).  

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254
    rilla said:
    Padone said:

    @Siciliano1969 I have not the time nor the skills to make good photorealistic pictures, at least in my opinion. I love what others do and sometime I feel I can give them suggestions in areas where I have some knowledge. Specifically I believe Jeff can improve in lighting.

    @Masterstroke I gave a look at the european apartment set and I agree it comes with good lights. I can't see those lights used in the pictures posted by Jeff though, it looks like he is using just the single point light.

    @bluejaunte That is a very interesting example you got here. Indeed that room looks poorly lit with no windows plus the walls are dark so there's very little light bouncing or environment light. I assume in those conditions the camera flash was the main light source. And indeed there's graininess in the picture that is probably due to a high iso film to compensate for the lack of lights. As for this being a common scenario for point and click cameras I don't think so, I rather believe this is an exceptional case.

    EDIT. Below there are examples of photos with a teenager in bedroom, there are hard shadows from the flash but they are mitigated by the environment light, as it is in common lighting conditions.

    https://depositphotos.com/179710724/stock-photo-smiling-girl-sitting-armchair-bedroom.html

    https://depositphotos.com/190031204/stock-photo-teenage-boy-using-smartphone-bedroom.html

    https://depositphotos.com/254318634/stock-photo-worried-teenager-sitting-bed-books.html

    I don't think these are low-fi flash photos. These are more or less proffessionally shot stock photos. Here's another one from the same site as before: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Snapshots-Color-1950s-1960s-64.jpg

    Looks like the flash is more to the left here, but the harsh shadows are there. They're brighter but if you look at the mirror on the wall on the right you see that very dark thin shadow again. With the limited dynamic range of old school or low quality cameras, it is easily possible that a harsh shadow ends up being completely black, just as much as is it possible to have completely white parts.

    I think you might be confusing aethetics with realism. Jeff isn't really doing anything unrealistic here, just something that isn't pretty to look at. From a photography point of few at least.

    All,

    Great discussion.  Good points, observations and recommendations.  For what it's worth, I do intentionally go for the 'old 70/80's' style flash photograhy.  I do so, for a few reasons: 1) I think they convey a more 'amateur', 'real' look vice a staged photo-shoot...and that is the exact mood I go for, and 2) despite my best efforts, bright ambient lighting, or strong directional lighting, or any shadows on the figure itself tends to reduce the realism of my characters.   See below for an example of the exact same scene from my previous postings but with a different lighting set up.  You can see it doesn't pull off the same level of realism. 

    Agreed I did overdo the bloom effect from laptop and TV... partially by design as the bloom intersecting with the character figure makes the work seem more seamless and adds realism.  I'll watch that more carefully in the future.  

    Bluejante - btw, your characters are THE BEST!!!!  I hope you have more in the works! 

    Parsamohsneirad - sorry, my message was about how you said it had 'reverse uncanny valley' :)

    _Jeff

     

     

    What do you use to make the tv and laptop light up?

    This image tells me that a scene can have other lights in the background, but the Daz character has to have a main light from the front that by far overpowers other lights in the scene. What is the scientific explanation for the realism falling apart once the main light is not coming from the camera's angle? 

    If you're asking why the characters dont look as realistic when not lit from directly in front then I can't say... it's definitely a limitation of my characters... 

  • davidtriunedavidtriune Posts: 452

    jeff_someone i really like your renders but this one stands out to me.

    I think the gloss on her face really makes her look real. is that using just dual lobe specular?

    022_full.png
    768 x 827 - 922K
  • j cadej cade Posts: 2,310
    edited May 2020
    j cade said:

     

    Well I've discovered a great way to solve the difficulty of rendering eyes... lighting so dramatic you cant see them! more seriously, I think nice dramatic lighting can have similar benefits to the polaroid style, in that it give you an excuse to obscure certain details, especially if you're not looking at it full size(also why I like dof no one will know I quartered the size of all the texture in the bg)

     

    This render still needs a hair more cooking, and I may tweak some things yet (though the nice thing about compositing anyway is that its easy to just rerender part of the image)

    more seriously, I'm starting to render clothing I'm actual happy with I think I coulds make a square crop of the area of the tie and the vest and it would be hard to tell it was cgi (still not satsfied with the sleeve tho) also not sure if I'm completey showing it here but underbelly came with some real nice normal maps, I plan to spend some time examining them to see what I can learn from them.

     

    bonus! despite this being an 'indoor' scene it actually renders pretty fast, I think I need to learn from this because the lighting is more faked rather than going entirely naturalistic as I usually tend to do, but film and photography does the same all the time so why have I not been?

    Very nice render. His clothing is excellent!

    Was this iray or Blender, J?

    Iray! (though blender was involved in both morphing several of the objects and postworking) There's been some definite frustration, but I am finally starting to make some progress on getting clothes to look better, which was one of my aims with this image

     

     

    I actually find short hair easier/ more natural in Studio. garibaldi/strand editor have some really nice features particularly wrt naturalistic clumping, on the other hand once ou hit a certain length getting it not to clump through the head is very painful. so far the only method ive found is scrolling through 50 clumping seeds until you find the one that happens to work, and then ghanging a few hairs and you have to do it again.

     

     

    Post edited by j cade on
  • j cade said:

     

    while the shirt is more rumpled in my image, given the quality of the rest of the clothes it would have started out starched so making it too rumpled looks wrong, because its not what we see in the real world, but unrumpled also looks wrong because the afformentioned cg signifiers. I also considered painting the normal map to have a more wrinkly seam but dressier shirts don't have those

     j cade, that is an amaing render, especially the clothes. How did you get the thickness to the clothes? I know some render engines allow a map for thickness, is that a Cycles render using some kind of thickness channel? Or did you model the thickness? That vest, in particular, is stunning—as good as anything I've ever seen for cgi cloth.

    All that said, the wrinkles on the collar look off to me. I never iron, let alone starch, my collars, but none of them have that kind of micro wrinkle thing going on. Collars don't get folded much to form those wrinkles and light cotton tends to drap fairly smoothly. The coat's low-level wrinkles look manufactured (e.g., the cloth was manufactured to have a crinkley texture)—I'm assuming that's some kind of perlin noise applied to it. it's a very cool look, and entirely "real." The colar, though, doesn't match any of the clothing I own or, way back in pre-virus days when I occassionally went into offices where people wore dress shirts, have seen. 

  • j cadej cade Posts: 2,310
    j cade said:

     

    while the shirt is more rumpled in my image, given the quality of the rest of the clothes it would have started out starched so making it too rumpled looks wrong, because its not what we see in the real world, but unrumpled also looks wrong because the afformentioned cg signifiers. I also considered painting the normal map to have a more wrinkly seam but dressier shirts don't have those

     j cade, that is an amaing render, especially the clothes. How did you get the thickness to the clothes? I know some render engines allow a map for thickness, is that a Cycles render using some kind of thickness channel? Or did you model the thickness? That vest, in particular, is stunning—as good as anything I've ever seen for cgi cloth.

    All that said, the wrinkles on the collar look off to me. I never iron, let alone starch, my collars, but none of them have that kind of micro wrinkle thing going on. Collars don't get folded much to form those wrinkles and light cotton tends to drap fairly smoothly. The coat's low-level wrinkles look manufactured (e.g., the cloth was manufactured to have a crinkley texture)—I'm assuming that's some kind of perlin noise applied to it. it's a very cool look, and entirely "real." The colar, though, doesn't match any of the clothing I own or, way back in pre-virus days when I occassionally went into offices where people wore dress shirts, have seen. 

    The thickness is in the model. the outfit is luthbel's Eldritch Seeker and the model has thickness (the lining has texture even!)

    which means theres probably no way to remotely dforce it, but it does look good

    tbf with regards to starching, between the lighting and the style of the clothing itself I was very much going for some indeterninate time from 1910-1940 in looking for reference any colar paired with a suit pretty much didn't have any wrinkles *at all* enen rumpled and disreputable private detectives

    we might not  startch now but back in the day

    of couurse making it look as straight and stiff in the render looked clearly fake so I figured it was better to at least clearly look like cloth

     

    (also that reference theres totally a visuble seam arond the edge, so I probably should have done that)

  • Sure, j cade, through Bogey ito it. Now how can I argue? 

    :p

    Now I'm wondering if what I'm seeing as too much wrinkling is part of the (perhaps too rough) texture for the cloth, so we're talking about two different things. But stitches are definitely visible on the collars I have. On a related note, that photo reminds me how good Hollywood clothing designers are at thiking about not just the clothes, but how the character would wear the clothes. Definitely a good example for anybody making art to follow.

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254

    jeff_someone i really like your renders but this one stands out to me.

    I think the gloss on her face really makes her look real. is that using just dual lobe specular?

    Thanks, yes it does.  

  • rillarilla Posts: 57
    elbiggus said:

    I've not really found much in the way of hair that can stand close scrutiny, but the biggest obstacle seems to be skin; most of the default textures are far too smooth and flawless which lends a definite artificial tone to renders. Been fiddling with making some of my own with some success, and although it's still a work in progress I'm still fairly happy with the indoor scene -- it could do with a bit of camera adjustment and some slightly stronger light, but the overall effect is close enough. Outdoors, though, there's a definite hint of waxiness to the skin that I just can't seem to overcome...

    Waxiness! Yes, that's a good way to put it. 

    Someone asked me to try outdoors scenes... so, see attached.  Tried to do some HDRI renders with mixed results.  Anyhow, feedback welcome as always.

     

    Jeff these are amazing! Was turning her back to the sun the key to making these images work? I'm dying to know what settings you used. Did you still use a spotlight positioned from the camera? And what were the render settings? Did you have to turn up the Gamma?

    The 1st and 4th images have a hint of "Daz"ness to them in the facial area. I'm not sure if it's the nose area, eyes, or the expression itself, but on a scale of 1-10 I would give both a 9. However, the 5th image, the close-up I would give a shining 10! You nailed that one. Genius work!

  • glennblackphotosglennblackphotos Posts: 160
    edited June 2020

    Here's my effort, I tend to find I enjoy so called natural lighting and play around with the f stop settings and iso.

    image1.jpeg
    1000 x 1300 - 287K
    Post edited by glennblackphotos on
  • Leonides02Leonides02 Posts: 1,379

    Here's my effort, I tend to find I enjoy so called natural lighting and play around with the f stop settings and iso.

    Very good! I'd only suggest that the image is a tad too sharp. As rilla pointed out, no human being is perfectly still when a photo is taken.

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,803

    Also rotate the iris texture on one eye so that they don't match perfectly. Otherwise, you absolutely nailed it!

  • Here's my effort, I tend to find I enjoy so called natural lighting and play around with the f stop settings and iso.

    Very good! I'd only suggest that the image is a tad too sharp. As rilla pointed out, no human being is perfectly still when a photo is taken.

    Thanks, I actually sharpened the image after the render in my photo editor so I shall give that stage a miss now.

  • Leonides02Leonides02 Posts: 1,379

    Also rotate the iris texture on one eye so that they don't match perfectly. Otherwise, you absolutely nailed it!

    Damn, that's a good tip.

  • jeff_someonejeff_someone Posts: 254

    Also rotate the iris texture on one eye so that they don't match perfectly. Otherwise, you absolutely nailed it!

    Damn, that's a good tip.

    Also, recommend getting rid of the depth of field or make it far less prominent...  i know its hard to resist but it just doesnt lend itself to realism.  

  • PadonePadone Posts: 3,688
    edited June 2020

    @Jeff Again, as for lights and camera lens your renderings are not "realistic" at all. This last advice about not using depth of field is nonsense if you want to mimic a real camera. Even human eyes have focus. Then again your technique is good enough to resemble old 70s cameras with a strong flash in a dimmed environment, but that's all. And I do love your renderings especially the characters are very good.

    In professional photography the depth of field (focal lenght) is used to isolate the subject from the environment and the same is done in movies.

    Post edited by Padone on
  • markusmaternmarkusmatern Posts: 559

    I really like how Sahira 8's skin turned out: (Click to seet the full resolution in the gallery)

    Sahira Sunbathing Speedboat

    The skin is right out of the box. Lighting is done using a single HDRI from HDRI Haven.

  • j cadej cade Posts: 2,310

    Also rotate the iris texture on one eye so that they don't match perfectly. Otherwise, you absolutely nailed it!

    Damn, that's a good tip.

    Also, recommend getting rid of the depth of field or make it far less prominent...  i know its hard to resist but it just doesnt lend itself to realism.  

    Padone said:

    @Jeff Again, as for lights and camera lens your renderings are not "realistic" at all. This last advice about not using depth of field is nonsense if you want to mimic a real camera. Even human eyes have focus. Then again your technique is good enough to resemble old 70s cameras with a strong flash in a dimmed environment, but that's all. And I do love your renderings especially the characters are very good.

    In professional photography the depth of field (focal lenght) is used to isolate the subject from the environment and the same is done in movies.

    I'm going to spit the difference here a bit. I generally like some level of dof because it is something that all cameras have. That said in a candid photo where half or more of the body is included the amount of dof is *very* marginal. Especially if we're talking about any camera with a smaller sensor sizes (polaroids, phones, compact cameras, etc). So whether no/marginal dof looks "real" depends on context. If you're going for a candid camera phone or Polaroid with more than just the face in frame strong dof is inaccurate. If you're trying to emulate professional photograph or film then you probably want a decent bit of dof (though again the more of the character in frame the less dof you want)

    That said I generally always add some dof to my stuff. Because a) it's great for hiding sharp edges common in many environment sets. B) I personally find over dof-ed hits me as fake less immediately than pin clear does. C) I'm more influenced by film and professional photography so I like it #aestetically. It is worth noting that the last one is 100% an #aesthetic preference rather than an objective statement on what makes things more #real.

    Also just a side note but Polaroids were common *well* into the 90s and they still pretty much looked like that. So it's not really a "70s" look (they're also apparently making a hipster comeback now)
  • I really like how Sahira 8's skin turned out: (Click to seet the full resolution in the gallery)

    Sahira Sunbathing Speedboat

    The skin is right out of the box. Lighting is done using a single HDRI from HDRI Haven.

    Nice.Did you Dforce the cushion she's on to get the foot indentations, or get that in another way. It definitely adds to the realism It's a pleasant irony that contemporary 3D rendering is so much better with dark skin, given how often photographic film was poor for dark skin.

    j cade, I have a question about your shader set-up. After playing with it, I love it on my darker skinned character, but when I applied it to a character using iSource's Catriona's skins, I noticed the mouth area got dark, as did the skin around a toe ring. I don't have a nVidia card for easy testing of solutions since this doesn't become clear in rendering until more passes than I have time to expirament with. Do you have any suggestions of what could be modified. It appears the SSS or translucency is calculating too far, but my attempts to modify SSS depth didn't solve the problem (within the limited testing I could do).

    To be fair to iSourceTextures, their skins tend to look excellent out of the box, so I might be seeking gains that can't be had.

  • markusmaternmarkusmatern Posts: 559

    Nice.Did you Dforce the cushion she's on to get the foot indentations, or get that in another way. It definitely adds to the realism It's a pleasant irony that contemporary 3D rendering is so much better with dark skin, given how often photographic film was poor for dark skin.

    Thanks!

    The cushion she's sitting on already had a nice high density mesh. So I just used Mesh Grabber

    It was merely a matter of minutes to get it right.

Sign In or Register to comment.