Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Ooops...looks like the "default" I expected isn't being used. Try 300, as shown below. It may not be correct values to simulate the PBR materials you're looking for, but it shows the shader is working:
* Left sphere is thin-walled water, with Thin Film on base: 300nm thick, 1.5 IOR.
* Right sphere is just thin-walled water.
For lighting, I used the default "Ruins" HDR, rotated about 60 degrees. The dichroism will change based on the angle of the light. Base Mixing was set to PBR S/G, but weighted produced similar results. I left all other node settings the same between the two.
From a quick reading, I see oil films can vary from 10nm to 100000 nm, so your range should be resulting in something.
I got a similar "top coat shine" from the projecting HDRi when converting the sphere to Plastic Smooth, then re-applying 300nm thickness, and 1.5 IOR.
Probably. Thin Film looks to simulate thin-film interference. I don't know what top coat does in a PBR sense, but the two are distinct. That said, Daz\s Uber implementation provides for a thin film on all three of its major layers: base, flakes, top coat. You could theoretically have a top coat that simulates a waxed floor. That will not (normally) exhibit thin-film interference, so the effect between the two won't be the same. But then you could lay on a thin-film that simulates an oily surface over the waxed top coat.
Also just read on Wikipedia that for the interference patterns to be apparent, the thickness of the material has to be on the same order as visible light. I changed 300 (pretty UVish) to 500, and it REALLY showed through. Very purdy, indeed!
So yes, the thjin film aspect of the shader appears to be functioning.
For my final test:
1. Both spheres are Water-Thin.
2. Sphere on the *right* has been changed to:
* PBR S/G (modest difference here)
* Refraction Index: 1.9
* Base Thin Film: 600
All other values left at defaults.
optimal film thickness for best seeing the effect is around 99nm in normal 5k light.... well i try and try.. and see nothing
..
ok - your postings just poped up after mine :-)... so i used wrong thickness values then.... right.. thickness MUST be in correct relation to the lights wavelenght.. that^s what i found too... moment...
ok definitly.. base thin film does work...
my examples are placed somehwere in the green grass from pixars hdri's...
that's definitly not a good spot for seeing the effect of thin film on a skin like shader - still subtle even on thin water... plus my thickness values starting from 2000 was way to high for sunlight which is somewhere between 5000 - 6000k.
The values which i found based on a formula .. saying bubbles in 5300k light looking best with 99nm thickness... 3th example..
To really SEE the effect one must also use the background as contrast.. example 4 with dome 99nm film...looks like a giant soap bubble to me
THX Tobor - one question solved
I can't find my bookmark on thin film, or if I even did bookmark it
I'll keep looking.
Something else I remembered was that there was no need to go higher than three digits for the nm thickness.
@Fishtales
Well there are different informations in the net...
What i found is congruent with my tests.... the maincolor is determined by the thickness of the film... the effect stops above 1500nm thickness... and starts somehwere around 90nm
A soabbubble has different thickness... that's why we see many different colors in nature.. example the film is thinner at the top of the bubble because of gravity...
Above 1500nm they call a Film THICK FILM ... and there is not much of light interference anymore.. that's why i could see nothing in my tests where i started with 2000nm
roughness and reflection...
The uploaded image shows a 8k bump map with the finest bump pattern which is possible (using 3 grey colors, each pixel next to the other is different))....
So.. a finer shine with bump is close to impossible....need to to the same render also with a normal map...
A glossy roughness parameter in PBR Specular is really missed! .. makeup "shine" is exactly between what can be done using bump and using the glossy roughness parameter in PBR metal.
But using PBR Specular and bump is in my eyes clearly better to control shine on a skin then mapping PBR Metals glossy roughness parameter..
example 2 uses 100% glossiness and bump with 0.2! Turning down glossines (example 2 o.8) results now in shine around the highlight..
Example 3 ... bump with 0.2 & glossiness down to 0.60.... that's about the effect of makeup powder - i am fine with this result
limits
...
.. in specular i use only 2 parameters for full control - glossines and bump strength
While i feel i have now full control over highlights, breaking up, and shine,,,
one of the problems using the bump stronger is moire. it toke me a while to find a pattern which works up to bump strenght 2..
Example 1: Glossiness 0.70, bump with 0.2.. nice!
Example 2: Glossiness 0.70 bump with strenght 2 -> moire in the black!..
While this examples show clear how good this bump map controls shine and highlights breaking... it shows also the limit
i tried to upload the bump map for free use in your tests - but the forum system wont let me doing it (format? to large?) -> send me a PM if you like to use this map.
@Arnold C. i also tested PBR metal .. while the roughness parameter is nice i have way more problems to control REFLECTIVITY using this shader... i could not replicate the demonstrated "shine" control from above without to much reflectivity and had to balance 4 parameters (weight, reflectivity, roughness AND bump... that's not good for skin
I've started trying to learn Daz Studio again recently and been working on tweaks to the V7 skin shader, it seems to be looking OK so I decided to see how it worked out with other lighting angles.
The main light from the HDR is slightly behind V7 and the fresnel in the shader seems to have picked it up quite nicely. The only other light is from a white reflector card just outside the shot to stop her front being completely in shadow.
Do the highlights on the right arm, hip, leg and the feet look OK?
And the hair looks decent for once! So happy about that.
If you've seen my first few renders in the gallery sorry that I keep using the same pose, it just makes it easier to see how much difference each tweak to the shader makes.
This render took 22 mins at 2000 x 3000 on a single 780ti.
Comments and suggestions on how to improve it are welcome.
And this was an earlier shot in more direct light without the reflector card.
Again, any comments on how to improve things would be gratefully received.
Nice results. By curiosity, is it rendered with the beta or with the current DS build?
It's using the 4.9 Beta, not sure what difference there is from 4.8 though, the scene and settings look pretty identical in both.
Well there is a difference in the final "skin tone" you obtain compared to the non beta, due to SSS calculation change (because of Iray update), and so due to scattering contribution change to final color. This is why it was interesting to know. Thanks for the answer :)
Thank you for this information. Did I read correctly, that in PBR specular/gloss you can control the shine of skin with only 2 parameters? This is great news!
Well - for the above examples on a ball using ONLY base parameters yes - i did not compear top coat parameters with each other.... But if you look for the simplest way to control glossiness and your model has a good bump map then PBR/Specular is more easy.
The example above from @siheels ... while it is a great render- the skin has to much reflectivity in the shadow/ambient - this happens usally with the PBR/Metal shader and/or to low bump strenght (and difficult light)...
Depends on the quality of the bump map, I'd say. But nevertheless, bump has it's limits (like shown at one of your testrenders. The upper arm/armpit area there doesn't look that nice to me. Not your fault, though
)
The maximum size of a picture for the forums is 2000x2000 pixels, if I remember correctly. If your map is 4kx4k, it won't allow you to upload it. I've got a dropbox account, which is scarcely in use. Could upload it there and set a link here in the thread for everyone to get at if you like.
Reflectivity correlates to the Refraction Index used. Default Reflectivity and IOR are set to plastic. Since the outermost layer of human skin has the same IOR (and Reflectivity), the default values should be somewhat valid. Didn't you yourself said that human skin looks very plastic-like?
Odd, I only use TWO parameters on PBR Metal/Rough, too... Glossy Roughness and Layered Weight (the latter only 'cause I use a Top Coat to mimic the oily layer). Instead of bump I prefer to let the lighter pixels of a roughness map "break the gloss". Bump strength is set some notches below a value on which the bump turns out ugly.
After several attempts to create a hand drawn roughness map using gradients (without sharp egdes at gradations
), converting specular and bump maps I found a more easy way to create those by loading the Diffuse Maps in Photoshop, change them to Black & White, then Invert them, and with the Background (original diffuse map) selected, adjust Brightness/Contrast to -150/100. On most Diffuse Maps the forehead, nose ridge/nosetip, cheek and chin areas turn out to be darker than the rest of the map.
Overhauled one of my earlier renders with my newest skin shader setup for Victoria 6, applied MEC4D's Unshaven 2 on the "Heidi Hair" (like she called it
) and got her jump into the Martian Princess outfit [Victoria 6, not Cath! 
].
Applying the appropriate Iray presets on it's countless material zones took way more time than anything else.
No postwork except applying the DS/Iray Logo.
Reflectivity of a given material is the same whether it's bathed in light or resides in dark shadows. The ability to reflect light doesn't change unless the refraction index suddenly changes. I'd say a bit too much gloss.
Any way to address fireflies on the whites of the eyeballs? I set up the surfaces according to the OP's first post but it's still giving me fireflies. I would be fine if I were going for a glitter ball but alas I am not!
That's right - but reflectivity is only to see in areas without highlights..... because Skin has a IOR same as plastic - but a way "rougher" surface.... it is not to much gloss - it is a to flat skin surface...The highligths looking correct to me... but the ambient reflections on the legs are to much in the above example....
...
The same is the problem in my earlier example which you reposted above - while the highlights are close to how i expect it to be in nature- the purple reflections (sky) on the chestbones is way to strong (no bump there) - and yes her armpits are not nice but well - they look "not nice" in reality too.. a lot of bump and hair pores are there
Dont forget that most images and spots which we see (in advertising, fasion magazins and so on..) are .. photoshopped and softened
The 4k and 8k bump maps in my ball examples... let me come closer to solve this problem... they break reflections while highlights and shine still are there... the roughness parameter in PBR metal did not give me the same results...The PBR metal shader has more "reflectvity" (in base) because it is on the upper end of human values.... (specular) ... caucasian skin is more on the lower end.
I had the best results simply mixing my 4k fine bump map with the original bump map... (that applies a finer microstructur and breaks refllections)... and flatening the orginal bump on nose and forehead to get sharper highlights there...
Your newest example... (while i like it) looks more like a well done drawing to my eyes. to less glossy - except if she would be full powdered from head to toe. Note how hard the shadows are - but her skin looks as she is in diffuse light - while the shadows show a very hard light.
Also - Glossiness Roughness in PBR metal...to me it looks like it simulates a very "fine" roughness. A sandpaper "corn" which is way finer then skin "roughness".... more close to surface structures such as, well metal and plastic
... light scattering of highlights(shine does just not look right on skin to my eyes...
a roughness "scale" parameter is missing
Andy - what did you do to create your 8k bump map?
@Gr00vus
The idea of using a 1 pixel (every pixel must be different to the next one) bump map in high resolution (4k or higher) - mixed with a normal bump (coming from a photo diffuse texture) is based on the observation that the finest skin details are only to see in a macro shot (which can only show a small part of a human)... so they are simply NOT there in a portrait or full body part skin shot - even in highest resolution and complete missing in our diffuse textures and daz bump maps......
sandpaper strenghts are the best examples for roughness... bump maps show just a hard corn... while in reality skin is more like a sandpaper strenght M200-400 or somehwere there...... the metal glossy roughness parameter maybe 800 - 1200 or even finer is on the other extrem..... our bump map shows maybe a 40-60...
ok - to experiment yourself ->
1. Open a small canvas in photoshop (8x8 pixels) - create a small pixel pattern using 3 - 5 different greys between 110 - 140.... set every pixel different to each/next other...
2. Define it as pattern so it can be used at anytime. Select Edit ->Define Pattern.
3. Open a 4k or 8k canvas.. fill it with your custom pattern.
i used such finer bump maps... mixed with the original bump -> just blend the layers together..
or standing alone in top coat... which gives a slitghly other effect (looks more like powder to me - not bad for makeup).
if you need additonal infos or screenshoots - just ask and i will upload as soon as i have the time to create them :-)
When you layer your custom bump map with the original/vendor skin bump, do you give one more weight than the other or is it 50/50?
And to clarify, you're saying that this sort of bump detail is really only useful for closeups - if we're doing a wide scene and the figure is not really close to the camera, this sort of bump detail won't be visible, so we shouldn't bother with it in those situations. Correct?
That's what I meant... not too much glossiness (value wise) but too much gloss due to a less rough surface (or "roughness").
Yup, but even then, the most significant feature about armpits are the "bending creases", or what english people would call them, which the DAZ figures AFAIK unfortunately lack.
Yes, I know, got "photoshopped" myself some time ago when getting some application photos. That's the reason I tend to use the term "fakography" for that.
Yeah, I know, even the old masters did it: a bit more hair here, a bit less overweight there, remove that ugly wart, add muscularity... just to please their, mostly powerful, customers and though prevent dungeontime... or worse. 
Any chance you reveal the secret how you created those special bump maps? I guess you did them in Photoshop using the "Noise" filter?
Yep, I already noticed that myself. The main problem with those self-forged roughness maps is to find the most correct balance between the darker areas and the lighter ones. Currently trying out a PBR Specular/Glossiness solution with a "maximum white" Black & White diffuse texture map conversion (Glossiness Map). You're right, Metal/Rough has a finer "stepping" that Spec/Gloss, which seems to work in larger "jumps". But IMO that makes it a lot more harder to control or "finetune" and needs you to get into the decimals.
And I guess I also should look for a more photorealistic wallpaper for the Millennium Environment background to get it look less "painted".
*When you layer your custom bump map with the original/vendor skin bump, do you give one more weight than the other or is it 50/50? "
Depends on your bump map - but 50/50 is the starting point... works mostly...
"And to clarify, you're saying that this sort of bump detail is really only useful for closeups - if we're doing a wide scene and the figure is not really close to the camera, this sort of bump detail won't be visible, so we shouldn't bother with it in those situations. Correct?"
no - because this fine patterns BREAK/scatter reflections.. you will see the effect also from distance (you can dial in more shine to skin).... the goal is to use a higher glossiness without having to much ambient reflections or get a plastic/wet like look.
Understood. What value have you been using for the bump strength for human skin renders when applying this approach?
"Understood. What value have you been using for the bump strength for human skin renders when applying this approach? "
)
for the face (but this depends really on the quality of the bump map)... 5 - 10!... 3- 5 is possible without working on the bump.. higher values need me to work a little bit and "Flatten" parts such as nose, cheeks and forehead or other to "wild" parts....
(for a natural skin whitout makeup - i flatten nose and forhehead bump in everycase - because i WANT the ugly but natural looking highlights there
@anold "Any chance you reveal the secret how you created those special bump maps? I guess you did them in Photoshop using the "Noise" filter?"
the noise filter did create me to large parts using the same grey values... i ended with doing it as pattern manualy.... the only problem as mentioned allready in my test-ball examples.. is getting moire - but this does not happen when blended with the original bump and using grey values close to the middle grey.