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
I found this article very interesting. Sounds like a movie I need to see several times
Tomorrowland
I think I'll stick with Photoshop and Gimp, not that I really postwork my stuff much anyway. I don't like to have too many things hanging around if I'm only going to use them the odd once or twice.
CHEERS!
Mmm, that didn't get a very favourable review in my local paper, but I tend to wait for DVD's these days anyway.
CHEERS!
I hadn't ever bothered looking for OS compositing software, before...mainly because I just didn't think it would be all that useful...but...
Cool, I'll give it a try, thanks!
I find it a lot of fun to play with LUTs in i-display now. It only saves the result when exporting as JPEG, but still a great feature now that you guys have shown it to me along with those free LUTs.
I think we could try matching the look of that shot with Mr Clooney, using DAZ models.
Wait. I must've missed it the first time around.
You mean there are still products being released without bump maps?!
The product page lists bump maps as included, but the MATs and the hair doesn't actually load them as far as I can tell. The texture naming don't provide a clue either, but looks like there's some greyish texture, so those are likely the bump maps.
Loaded them up and they work quite well as bump maps. Didn't enable displacements though.
Switched some things so the bump works better with the specular. I think these came out rather nicely. No displacements yet. I think adding some custom displacements to simulate separate loose strands will make this look almost believable.
And in case anybody's wondering, no diffuse maps are used. This is almost purely shader based with opacity and bump maps.
They are very nice, but if we really want to use those for more than just tonemapping, you need to be able to output AOVs. Having EXR is the a step in the right direction, but there's no AOV output support in DS (though 3delight has had it for years). You can do things the hard way of course. :)
Hmm, is that something doable with a render script? Rendering separate stuff (ie AO, shadows, specular, diffuse, reflections, refractions etc) and output those into layers in an EXR file?
Of course that"s doable. And in that case using EXR would reveal all it's potential. I'll try to come up with a simple shader with the AOV (soon?? )
BTW here is my first test with Kettu's shader. I began with glass (don't mind the little plane on the left I forgot to delete)
Looking forward to it.
Ok folks, brace yourselves,
I've done a render! Not just any render, no, this is a test render using Kettu's RT Kit Alpha!! I had to compile the shader in Shader Builder to get it to work and then I just grabbed the nearest light to hand, which was SimplePhys Distant. I am floored, it may have taken just shy of 30 mins to render (progressive off), but, it was worth the wait!
The next one I do will be better framed and probably better lit, but, I'm sure you'll agree that Kettu has done an amazing job and she should be heartily congratulated.
Iray, schmyray!
CHEERS!
I don't think the render is that good. The quality must be way over that if you want to smack down Iray. I don't know why you don't seem to like Iray, but for me it's a nice addition to my toolbox. My POV is that 3delight has other weapons and that's what has to be shown here. And you'll need more than a simple G2M with a simple light to do that. Don't want to sound harsh but in the realistic field you won't beat Iray easily. We have to show better renders (me included)
I hear what you're saying, and it was just a quick test render. I will pay more attention to everything next time, I was just happy to get it working. The main reason I am not pro Iray is because I can't make the fullest use of it and will never afford to. I think it should have been an optional plug in.
CHEERS!
Affordability is the main reason I won't be using Iray. I'm a senior citizen with only Social Security for income. Between my mortgage and utilities, there is very little left.
Another reason is that I've already got a list of things I want to master. Seriously doubt that I will ever make it to the end of that list.
Personal preference: If I want photorealism, I'll pull out one of my cameras and take a picture.
I like the quick test render and am looking forward to the next.
I know what you mean, I'm out of work and am on Social Security, I have to live with very little money on me in cash in order to keep money aside just to keep this hobby going. Photorealism isn't what I'm truly after either, but, I like to push the envelope with the CG I can afford to see just how good it can get. I doubt I'll ever afford the software or a machine anywhere near the capabilities required by the pro's that do CGI for a living, but, I do want to continue to make the best of what I do have.
CHEERS!
I know what you mean, I'm out of work and am on Social Security, I have to live with very little money on me in cash in order to keep money aside just to keep this hobby going. Photorealism isn't what I'm truly after either, but, I like to push the envelope with the CG I can afford to see just how good it can get. I doubt I'll ever afford the software or a machine anywhere near the capabilities required by the pro's that do CGI for a living, but, I do want to continue to make the best of what I do have.
CHEERS!
Sorry for you both. However you don't really have to pay for Iray. It just cooks longer than 3delight eventually
My POV is that anybody can use Iray even if rendering on CPU. That is no different from Luxrender and you don't necessarily need to buy new hardware to use it. I find it's a pity to throw it away without trying. And realistic render doesn't necessarily mean realistic scene. There are things you can't photograph because they don't exist or are not reachable. But you can create a scene that is believable. That's what they do in VFX.
I personally like 3delight because I learned a lot from it and I think I'll still learn some more in the future. That is also true for Iray and other tools.
BTW About 3delight and SSS, I don't know if any of you saw the movie Epic, from Blue Sky Studios. Some characters have loads of SSS http://www.epicthemovie.com
I'm not sure which renderer WETA used, but for me the 'ultimate' skin/SSS is Gollum. Especially the Hobbit version...
I've actually seen DS users produce Iray renders that aren't any more realistic than an average Poser render.
In general, I think all contemporary GI-enabled raytracers can produce exactly the same images. They all use the same math models, essentially. The competition lies in speed, robustness, scalability and ease of use.
I see. These renders look nice =)
And what it's bundled with...
Sorry for you both. However you don't really have to pay for Iray. It just cooks longer than 3delight eventually
My POV is that anybody can use Iray even if rendering on CPU. That is no different from Luxrender and you don't necessarily need to buy new hardware to use it. I find it's a pity to throw it away without trying. And realistic render doesn't necessarily mean realistic scene. There are things you can't photograph because they don't exist or are not reachable. But you can create a scene that is believable. That's what they do in VFX.
I personally like 3delight because I learned a lot from it and I think I'll still learn some more in the future. That is also true for Iray and other tools.
BTW About 3delight and SSS, I don't know if any of you saw the movie Epic, from Blue Sky Studios. Some characters have loads of SSS http://www.epicthemovie.com
I know Iray is free with Studio. It's the need for a new computer that keeps me out. My laptop is a single core, 32-bit machine. It still works, though, and there are many things I still have to master using it. For those who have rigs that handle the load, I'm happy they are excited.
It's rather how far will I go? When I program, I don't render. That's one of the big problem for me. When you begin doing things like that it can make you go really far because you can always make something better. And I also have tons of TODO on my list which will take me time
So you'd benefit from old Pixar techniques that don't rely on heavy raytrace.
Speed is in important, but they have to be put into perspective. Are you doing stills or animation? With animation, generally you want something that's good enough and renders fast enough with the least amount of noise (or at least predictable patterns so you don't get shimmering between frames). Good enough means if something can be faked or dropped completely without noticeable difference, that's OK. Unless your Disney/Pixar with loads of render farm hours and a power bill that rivals a small town. :)
With stills or VFX work, you probably put getting realistic results with very good quality first. Having a more integrated workflow with a compositing app is of course a necessity.
I translate robustness to being able to have more creative freedom on what's being rendered - physically based and non-physically based (non photo realistic - NPR). Hard to beat RPS, Arnold and 3delight on that front. I've yet to see physically based renderers being used for NPR style work. And no, by NPR I don't mean just 3D toon style renders, but something more like Paperman or A Scanner Darkly.
Scalability can mean different things - small to large projects or the more technical terms - performance with single/multi thread and even large scale render farms. LIcensing terms and fees is related to these. Of the three (RPS, 3delight, Arnold), Arnold have the most flexible one I think. They're offering a floating rental license so you can pretty much pay when you use it. It's not cheap though. :) Node locked license is limited to just two per customer, per site. Some renderer plugins like Vray for C4D allows unlimited render nodes although the Max and Maya version do not. DAZ's own Carrara comes with a 50 render node support out of the box.
Ease of use - well, that generally depends on the user and the host app. Most pro users have the knowledge, experience and understanding what needs to happen before you even hit the render button. :) Most pro grade apps offers all the bells and whistles to do so. Even small studios and VFX teams have an in house TD and look dev if you don't know how to set them up. At least, they should be.
Takeo mentions production ready, which I think is probably the most relevant thing to the one man team most DAZ users falls into. For me, that means the ability to hide emitters, selectively render parts or turn them off competely (diffuse, specular, reflections, refractions etc), choose which part gets occlusion or GI, render AOVs, etc. In that respect, both 3delight and iray that's built into DAZ Studio are not really there. And it's not the renderer's shortcomings, because those features are supported in other apps. The only exception is Luxrender, which don't have AOV support (yet). Octane Render 2.1 onwards supports AOV, but I don't know if that works seamlessly with the DAZ Studio plugin. I think the plugin supporting the newer version is still in pre-release state.
It's like having a Hemi under the hood, but the fuel tank of a scooter. :) Probably with the same gear/differential too. :D.
One thing I do hate from most plugins/exporters with DAZ Studio is that they're pretty much tied to the current build of the renderer. Like mcj1016 pointed out, with 3delight, you'd still be able to use newer versions and render an old image made with much older builds. Plus you still get the benefit from improvements to the renderer without changing anything. That's stability and maturity. Not a lot of renderers have that.
The difference between Luxrendrer and Iray is that Lux makes use of the OpenCL functionality of my GPU (which was themain reason I bought the GPU I did) and Iray would rely solely on my CPU. I'd rather not have my CPU going full bore for the amount of time it would take an Iray render to complete. There is a newer version of Luxrender on the way which promises big improvements in render speed, if the Lux plug ins can make use of this then Lux would be of good use to me.
It's the affordability of Nvidia GPU's that make Iray a less appealing prospect, regardless of what deals Daz may be able to do, I have a feeling that they may still be beyond what I'd be comfortable spending.
Anyway, this is a 3Delight thread and I'd far rather be discussing that
CHEERS!
I want to learn about 3Delight and push it as far as I can. :-)
That makes 2 of us!
CHEERS!
If I was still using my former PC which was mono CPU I don't know if I would be using DS4. I don't remember if I switched to DS4 before or after I got my quadcore desktop
Are you using DS3 or DS4 or both?
Ease of use - well, that generally depends on the user and the host app.
Takeo mentions production ready, which I think is probably the most relevant thing to the one man team most DAZ users falls into.
I include this all into ease of use.
I may have misinterpreted your meaning, but to me it sounds as if you were trying to say there is some "innate magic" to Iray's final output, while there is none. It's just a yet another archviz tool. And as many of the unfortunate newcomers have shown, it still takes time and effort to master, just like any other visualiser/renderer. Or, y'know, photography.
Iray comes with a lot of very useful material models being predefined and hardcoded into the renderer core. This is a huge advantage. But, say, with 3Delight it's possible to write all the not-yet-hardcoded models manually and even output your new shadeop to a DLL, so as to ensure speed. Granted, I mean 3Delight Studio/Maya/whatever, not the DS built-in one because I don't know if you can use DLL extras with it.
Bottom line: Iray integration into DS, since it's not being treated as "advanced rocket science" but rather geared towards a new user, may be a quicker path to "photorealism" than polishing the "arcane" 3Delight DS integration with scripts, new shaders and so on. But even then, DS+Iray won't give a random new user "photorealism" automagically.