Where is the limitation?
I understand that comparing Daz (a software that works with premade geometries, texture and shaders and combine them as the user wants it) with something like Maya or ZBrush is not fair, but anyway: where exactly lies the limitation (or limitations) that stops Daz from generatiing results like this one (sorry, I'll not repost the image itself here as I don't have the author's permission)?
https://www.instagram.com/p/CfR54rMqnXX/
And yes, these are renders - the profile have several others impressive ones.
Is it the geometry? The render engine? Anything else? And yes, I know that this render was probably generated in a powerful, multi-video-card rig, but this is not the point here - the point is that the same rig probably would not generate the same results using Daz.
PS: This is not a criticism of Daz or of the (talented) PAs we have here, as I said I know these are different beasts. I'm only trying to undestand where exactly is the limitation.
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
The link doesn't work for me.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CfR54rMqnXX/
Thanks, @hansolocambo, for posting the corrected link. @Gordig, I had accidentally added a semicolon at the end of the link. Hansolocambo posted the right one, and I've corrected mine as well.
There was photographic reality thread a while ago, not much used these days. But in short the problem as I can identify is that the current shaders just aren't good enough. The way the current shaders work even on 8.1 means you either get a too waxy or a too plastic look. I am not sure if this can be resolved in the Shader Builder/Mixer as we have it now. Arnold renderer has one of the best out of the box shaders, and it uses several layers to mimic a real skin. Check out this short article : https://docs.arnoldrenderer.com/display/A5NodeRef/skin. I think their SSS algoritm is one of the best in the market at the moment.
EDIT : I am not sure that is the whole of the problem, but probably the main one from my investigations.
IMO the render can be done in DS, the user just needs to create the proper geometry and shaders/materials for it just like this artist did. The issue is that users here don't want to puit in the time and effort and expect everything to be one click solutions, yet it is not cost effective for a PA to put the amount of time and effort into a single product that can generate this level of detail, especially one that works for all users with varying degrees of skill. Daz Studio is a scene setup, animation and render app, nothing more. You want quality output, then the user has to provide the quality input.
Actually, it probably could, assuming the artist took the time to work on the geometry, lighting and materials used rather than just loading a premade character, hair and light set then hitting "render".
Renders made in those other programs usually use content made specificaly and optimized for that scene, not premade content used "as is".
Exactly... What can be seen on galleries of those other programs, are just the end results, and it may have taken weeks or even longer to make the character, textures, maps and set up the scene and lighting to get there.
There are some amazing renders in the photoreal thread, done in DS, but those were not "load and render".
I've used Iray, Cycles, Octane and now am experimenting with Arnold, and at my level of skill (by which I mean that I'm not particularly good with any of them), none of them look significantly better than the other, and honestly rendering Iray in DS looks the best because it's what I'm the most familiar with. If I really worked on rendering in any of those engines, I could probably get to the quality in the OP with any one of them. Different render engines have their own strengths and weaknesses, not to mention learning curves, so adding, for example, Arnold support in DS wouldn't suddenly give us the ability to render images like the OP.
@paintbox, I believe the post you're referring to is this one:
https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/313401/iray-photorealism/
This post was the starting point for my interest in photorealism using Daz. :-) I've read it from start to end a few months ago, and some of MelissaGT's renders blew my mind away, they are almost indistinguishable from real pictures... There are other good ones, too, and one of my favorite PAs for characters, Bluejaunte, also contributed to the discussion. Amazing thread...
About my original question: It seems that the prevailing opinion (here in this thread) is that it IS possible to achieve these results using Daz... I've seen some examples (like MelissaGT's renders I mentioned above) that suggest this is true but, on the other hand, I ask myself why someone that makes skins as good as the ones I've linked to (and a few others I see around in Instagram) don't try their hand here. Some of the 3D models people do and post in Instagram are made only for fun (they earn their money in 3D but not with those specific models), so there wouldn't be a reason for not trying to sell them here. This is why I ask myself if there isn't something Daz-related that makes it more difficult (not impossible, but harder).
OK, there's the user and his inability or laziness, but if the barrier was only the user's skills the promo pictures (at least for some of the characters) would look real enough (they don't). There's the cost/benefit for the PAsthat, after investing hours and hours of work to create the product could end up selling it for 10 bucks a pop in a sale... But even so, I have a hard time believing these are the only reasons.
I tend to "blame" the natural challenge that is to reproduce human skin, its tones, etc.
What makes me think this way is that's not that hard to create, in Daz, geometries and materials of inanimate things ("not people") that, when rendered, look 100% real. I've rendered a few lamps that I bought in the last sale that generated, with little effort, absolutely real-looking renders; I've seen some environments that looked very real; and I made some objects myself, using Blender and free textures from sites like AmbientCG, that also look real. So, the main problem seems to be people, and, more specifically, skins, as we have plenty of "not people" photorealistic products in Daz, but not even one absolutely real-looking character (and the vast majority of them doesn't look real at all).
Again, I stress that this is NOT a criticism. Daz has many uses, and almost none of them even benefit from photorealism (like the "adventure" games, comics, etc that people create). I also have some marvelous products from lots of talented PAs, including beautiful characters. I would not have had spent as much money as I already did here (sometimes only to listen to my wallet complaining as soon as I click "complete order") :-))) if I didn't like the PAs work and DAZ environment as whole. I'm only trying to understand.
They may be using professional modelling programs, ie. they can do everything from ground up within that program - DS is not a modeller, you need to create/modify the geometry with something else.
Within the ones using those professional programs (with a steep learning curve), Poser and DS have not been valued that high...
you can test it out for yourself with high quality 3D scans like 3D Emily https://vgl.ict.usc.edu/Data/DigitalEmily2/
and read how people use it https://vgl.ict.usc.edu/Research/DigitalEmily/
At the risk of repeating what you've already said, human skin is very difficult to reproduce accurately, for a number of reasons. Skin is a pretty complex substance, and our brains are highly tuned to recognize humans, meaning that the level of fidelity required to make, for example, wood or metal look realistic is much lower than it is for human skin. Consider that multi-million dollar films and video games, using massive teams of top-tier industry professionals, still haven't completely perfected realistic humans.