Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Can someone here please explain how the botched it with 8.1? Yes, I asked how not if.
As far as I can tell, they still have the blue seams left in spectral mode. I thought the changes in the "transmitted colour" setting should be a default by now.
What else have they missed so far for the DAZ IrayPBRSkin? What have they done right?
Maybe discuss this in the 8.1 thread. And there's plenty done right (again, if you participate in the 8.1 thread).
Ahh yes the gum line is limited in its details. I've sometimes used 3rd party mouths and teeth from turbosquid to replace g8s, like when doing an extreme closeup of a character getting their teeth knocked out. But as you probably already saw 8.1 looks like there is more detail. I'm bringing it into blender right now to do some compares (attached)
I like using https://www.daz3d.com/alternative-jaws-and-teeth-for-genesis-8-female-s as a base and then modifying the textures and shader settings. There is also https://www.daz3d.com/tongue-control-hd-for-genesis-3-and-genesis-8-female-and-male to give more HD to the mouth. I'm not sure of a Teeth HD but with 8.1 might not need one now.
Oh my god! You are correct! I can't believe I completely missed that one and spent time trying to reproduce it in blender several months ago. I guess that's the down side of having TOO many assets.
Attached are compares between the new g8.1 and g8 in blender. I've noticed not all my morphs work with the new g8.1 especially ones concerning mouth and tongue. I also wanted to know if the new g8.1 offered more detail for those of us that are not PAs for making morphs in blender. Sadly that answer is NO.
EDIT: The subdivision on the G8 by default is higher than the G8 that is why the detail in the test attached images looks higher. There is really no significant difference between model geometry.
There is no "cheating" there is just techniques. :) Looks bad ass!
So the G8 default starts at SubD1 by default and the G8.1 starts at SubD2. When I set both to SubD3 and pulled into Blender there seems to be no difference.
detective pikachu on the case i see
How about Videorealism? Found this for Unreal while exploring the textures.xyz site suggested by Daz for G8.1.
When I load a new figure the first thing I do is grab the average proportions slider and pull it down to near zero (if not zero) for women. Men need a little less but still it makes them look a lot better. Are you saying that you feel that elongation is mostly in the legs or is that just an example? I feel that they reaaaaaly stretch out the toros to the point it's almost comical.
Also...amzing work. What is a hair that you think works best? Is there a figure/skin that you feel responds best to this treatment?
This is as close to photorealism as I can get.
Dude, she passed me on the way to work.
Well, used here the new G8.1F with Fredda in. Really natural i think. Without any postwork done.
And another one with complete pose...
Lothar, is she using the PBRSkin? I'm not sure if you are wanting feedback or not, but let me just start with the neck and head pose and the hand on the shoulder. Can you pose yourself in the mirror like this? Is this REALLY a natural pose?
Do this, turn your head left and right, up and down, shake it all about. If you divide it into a lower, middle and head section what part is the most significant part of the action? It's not the head, or even the upper neck it's the lower neck. Even when cocking the head to one side it's not just primarily the head.
LOL... No. you're right. I can't that. But it's from the V8.1 natural pose collection...
.. this test was for the new shader settings that I try to understand. So feedback as always is very welcomed.
LOL Well the PA's don't know everything. I was trying to put myself in that pose and it is SOOO Unatural. My elobow was strained, neck got a cramp. For me anyway, I see poses as a teleport to 50% to 90% of the destination but then you have to walk the rest of the way from there.
My concern is that you cannot use the PBR shader with **Spectral rendering which I use exclusively, without the texture seams showing, and if there's a better solution rather than turning off/lowering translucency (Which kills the PBR effect) I'd love to read about it...
Sure one could argue the point that I turn off specular rendering, but then, what is the point of even having an accurate rendering mode for a physically-based shader that is custom made for PBR lighting in the first place? Plus, the whole point of having an iray rendering engine and using PBR shaders and lighting is to accomplish the most realistic results for our artwork!
**(You know the more accurate lighting that works best with PBR shaders of which they're custom made for?)
people used to complain about the seams showing in spectral rendering before the IrayPBR shader.
What was the solution in that case, i cant remember...?
edit: oh it was discussed in this very thread https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/313401/iray-photorealism/p13 but cant be bothered reading what their solution was if there was one
Thanks so much for hunting down the possible solution for me it is very much appreciated!
EDIT: I think I've found the solution with both the normal skin settings and the PBR, for the new PBR, simply switch the color of the transmitted setting and place it in the SSS setting and change the transmitted color to 254x3/099x3 sure the overall shading will be brighter, but that is pretty much the only solution that I can find without shutting off the spectral mode/translucency...
Hope people will read this...
trying out the pbrskin shader.
well done! Is this the vicky or base 8.1 ?
I am doing a render now where I applied the Kjaer 8 (or somethink like that) to G8.1M, applied the new iRay PBR Skin preset, and turned on all the appropriate Surfaces subsections (search in the Surfaces tab for "enable") on that matched the old Kjaer skin materials including one for "Specular Occlusion" which I don't think the old skin shaders had but enabling it on the new one turns on that feature with nice believable results. Basically areas that with the old 8.0 skin shader had very light spectral glossiness were amped up with 'Specular Occlusion' enabled at default.
why are those the only two options?
Yeah I really love playing around with the new PBR shaders; and I'm pretty estatic that I solved the texture seams issue while using the specular render mode, now I can apply a custom preset to all my old characters!
Hey y'all smart explorers of CGI photorealism, I just sent a render to my brother, who is a painter and photographer with a great eye. The thing that stood out for him in the render was the depth of field, which he felt was off.
(This is a cropped version to comply with nudity regulations. The original, which shows the bottom of the cane and chair is link removed.)
I don't take or examine photographs often enough to have a real sense of this, but his criticism doesn't feel off. Which lead to the question: how accurate is Iray lens simulation, and what can be done to make it more accurate? For this image, I matched the sensor width with the sensor width on the camera I was trying to emulate (a Mamiya 645 medium format camera) and a lense length to a real lens (the 150mm f/2.8), but I have no idea how to accurately set my depth of field to match that lens. The camer F-stop settings don't feel representative to me (It's usually way more shallow than I believe would be true).
This is kind of rambling, but I'd love to get your thoughts on the camera settings side of this. (Not that it matters since the tone mapping settings are disconnected from the focus settings, but I always render out to EXR and ignore tone-mapping altogether. My monochrome conversions are done with film emulation LUTS.)
dont think depth of field is going to save the awkward pose, cartoonish face, and butt clipping in that render, but i always wondered if this camera set was any good: https://www.daz3d.com/real-world-camera-collection
Ha, that was blunt. But you're wrong about the butt clipping. The suface of the seat is depressed because she's sitting in it. The camera angle hides it. If you look at her feet, the arms bend a bit under their weight, too.
I wish there was a bit in the product descrition for the camera collection that described how the artist matched the presets to the cameras. Does it assume the Iray F-stop is accurate (or know that it is)? Have something else to guide them? I love the idea of that product, though.
DOF is completely variable on a real camera. There is no "off" other than maybe from a point of view of what a photographer would consider beautiful, which is subjective in any case. Or maybe he just meant the blur per se isn't as refined as on a real camera?
https://www.digital-photography-tips.net/depth-of-field.html
In any case, I agree this isn't going to be the thing that makes a render photorealistic.
I like to use https://www.daz3d.com/ig-photographers-toolbox-35mm-cameras and use either the 35 or 50, I find the DOF controls a lot easier to use. Something else to play with is the Lens Distortion Type, espeically inv_poly3 which can be used to add lens curve (just a tad, like no greater than K1 0.1) which makes the center focus of the scene pop (this is usually not a desired effect and modern cameras remove it) but to me it's an artistic thing.
There is also a difference between emulating the camera, and emulating the film used or for digital the software/chip capturing process. And I would say the film has more to do with emulation than the camera, the camera just focuses the light onto the film. I only know how to reproduce films using plugins in photoshop, which there is a lot of them and are just layer effects you add in post. One thing I have on my "to do "maybe" list" is figure out how to emulate the iphone cameras in daz and in post.
EDIT: I do see you add a depression for the chair, but how hard is it to turn the head that much? I also don't buy the lower back. Do you have a reference photo of someone in this pose?
I would have also given her hd areola and some more texture contrast there. That's just me and I'm a total perv.
Right, but it is one element that should be considered to mimic a real camera.
Good point about the back curvature on the pose. When I created the pose, I wasn't thinking about how much the lower back bends in situations like that, and don't have any similar chair/sofa to try with. The pose that inspired the chair was quite different than the chair I ended up modelling, and the models legs were lower. As far as her upper body, I have poor flexibility overall, but can easily turn my head and hold my arms like that.
For film emulations, I stick with LUTs. I have a freebie/trial Photoshop action that emulates films I have a LUT for, and the results are the same. The LUTs are much easier and quicker to use, so it's LUTs plus scanned film grain for me. I normally don't use lens distortion, but I think I put in 0.1 K1 pitcains (sp?) on this on to emulate an older lens. However, that's obviously a total guess.