Acheiving Photorealism in DAZ3D
juzduit
Posts: 33
Hey guys,
I've taken a look at the models available in DAZ3D , and although the latest Victoria 7 - Cailin bundle looks very accurate to acheiving photorealistic rendering, they're still far from reality.
I do have taken a look at this video, and i was amazed at how much photorealism is done.
I do know they have taken a real life video of every shot and somehow to make it "digital" .
However , for my purpose, i am looking for 3D realistic models for single shot purposes only.
Is there any way i can purchase them and still integrate them within DAZ3d?
If not using DAZ, anywhere else i can acheive a more photorealistic "woman/man" ?
Thanks!
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
This is a common topic and one I would have thought would lessen as time and technology progressed. Three things that stand out for me as is product wise for realism is skin, hair and asymmetry in features. Look at her face closely and you see on eyes is bigger then the other, her mouth is also asymmetric, eyebrows etc etc. Then the other part of the equation is a proper skin shader Eyes have to be 100% spot on to sell realism too. Even cloth dynamics play a big roll.
Well you are on point. I mean there are some flaws but it is "good enough" to pass as a photo realistic models, which is why my question was if DAZ content / any external content compatible with DAZ has possibilities in providing this level of acheivment. If not, where could i go look.
Anyone?
It's a debate not worth having. No one else knows what your standard of photorealistic is. Judging by comments I see on places like deviant art, some people aren't very discriminating. I'm an experienced photographer and still occasionally get fooled, both ways. That is, I've seen photos that I thought were excellent renders and I've seen renders I thoight were photos until I studied them in detail for some time.
It also depends greatly on your final output and purpose. I've attached an image that I know I can print at 11x14, frame and hang, and no one will believe it's anything but a studio photoshoot. Context is everything. People don't look at paintings from 2 inches away, but most digital products can be viewed at greater than 100%, which will often expose issues that aren't apparent at normal viewing distances.
For Szark, I would note that the eye relection in the attached image is the virtual softbox used for the "shoot". That is, not baked in.
So, juzduit, what is your outcome, purpose, criteria? I agree with Szark that hair is probably the hardest for a home computer (at least current models). Not so much for texture, but the current product rarely fall properly and can't be forced into submission either. Eyes aren't as hard as they used to be. Iray does a great job and there are sufficient shaders and morphs to be workable. Skin is the topic of much debate, but frankly I find some the examples (in the long running thread on this forum) that are touted as excellent.realistic results, to be awful. They are way more blotchy than most people and generally look like to product of decades of overexposure to the sun.
Again, the art is in the presentation. Hair blown up to greater than life size will be hard to "sell". YMMV.
Yeah the more I learnt what I was doing the more I saw what realism is about from a maker and viewer...so yes it is a very subjective subject as fastbike said we looks real to one may not be for another..
LOL love your note to me fastbike. Made me chuckle, you know me so well it seems. :P
I recently saw something that kind of came as a shock...many car ads/commercials aren't real. They are all renders.
So, it's also a question of subject matter...because some things are a much easier to do than others.
Please don't bump threads.
Good points about the car ads... I'm reminded that liquor ads were done with plastic ice for many years.
I wonder how many people who want "photo realism" today have actually done any work with 4x5 or 8x10 view cameras - the kind that used sheet film. Heads or tails on a dime at a range of 50 miles!
From a (DAZ 3D) beginner's point of view - I've seen some ads from Renderosity circa winter 2015-2016 that IIRC showed photorealistic characters for V4.2. These were mostly females and they were definitely a cut above. I think Renderosity (or the vendors who made the products) were calling this stuff "HD" or "Extreme" or some fancy name like that.
When I first saw "Iray..." advertised last year (2015) I didn't realize it was some sort of "industry wide" thing... there were one or two street scenes in the DAZ ads that were made with products that I had in my collection and the stuff was lit up "a different way", eg. night-time views, dusk, that sort of thing. No offence to DAZ but at the time it didn't really grab me and it was a few months before I finally gave it (Iray + Iray-specific materials) a try... WOAH! Hold the street scenes, is all I can say right now; I'm getting some really nice surfaces like candy car paint that I didn't think I could do, and fussing around with it I'm coming up with stuff that I can't describe. I can't fully*CONTROL* it yet and every render is a surprise, but to me all these reflected worls and swirls are VERY interesting, like in this first-render of a cylindrical shape that I made in Hexagon, then bent into an "S" shape. Wow.
I also did some G3M/G3F studies in DS 4.8 using Iray -- just the figures, lights and a backdrop; no clothing or proprs -- and the level of subtlety and detail was amazing -- little reflections and light paths that it never would have occurred to me to pay attention to if, say, I was working with live models -- were nicely "enhanced". Rembrandt quality stuff in my opinion. Then again the old masters never did stick to textbook realism, did they? Michaelangelo's work is all HUGELY distorted.
Another point is that wasn't too long ago that folks used to spend a lot of time and trouble mixing their darkroom chemicals "just so" to get this sort of grain and interference into their photographic prints. Think Edward Weston.
Another interesting point - I just downloaded the huge "Chateau Blanc" product as well as a minor shader set. Guess which files were bigger?! Hint: they were both many hundreds of megabytes... kind of an even match actually.
In the attached pencil drawing which I uploaded a few weeks ago in the Hexagon category, you can see that I didn't have to go very far down into the image (this is from an original drawing, based on an original photo for the most part) before the SUBSTRATE -- the grain of the paper -- began to play a role in my attempt at "photo" realism, heh.
NOTE TO CENSORS: ok I caved and blurred the boob on G3F. My bad!
Image removed for nudity. Please see this thread for info: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/3279/acceptable-ways-of-handling-nudityI read your posts. We also share some of the same "hot buttons" about renders.