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
Hi all,, a few days ago,, I happend to find one new blender plug-in for daz figures when I struglle with daz bvh for genesis3
DAZ importer by (Thomas Larsson )
http://diffeomorphic.blogspot.jp/2016/08/daz-importer.html
I seldome see user who guide about this plug in,, then I have tested and play, almost 3 days , now I believe this plug in have many future, which we could not do before. and many possiblilties,, (may need more daz user support to up-date,, I believe,).
Then,, I hope to spread this plug in for more blender users and we test and offer feed back for Thomas Larsson (who have made plug ins for Make human, nowhe seems to make plug in for daz figures,, as same as famous other blender plugins ( mcjtelblender, milghost importer,, and Khalibloo panel)
this plug in have alerady some real unique function for daz genesis figures.
1. it can import daz figures(genesis 1 to 3) with clothings, from collada (obj) and duf scene file. , after you set ds contents data path in blender tool panel.
2 the generated bones arrange is realy clean.. then you can easy modify it and you can convert rig for blender rigify, or makehuman rig too.
3 it can import animation as duf pose files.. that means,, if you make animation on daz timeline, then save it as new animation.dsf,, you can import animation (pose) and auto set keys , on blender timeline,,
4 it can import some base morph and controoler from data,,dsf files ,, in my test, it somehow remain problem,, but at least you can import moprh from dsf file.
anyway,, if many user know this plug in,, I believe yours offer feed back to the vendor... it is actually killer plug in for daz genesis3 user in blender, I beleive,
I planed to make individual topic,, but I do not know which forum is besto to announce it,, then anyway just hope you download it,, and plya it.
I may try to reply if,, someone find difficulity to usage,, (hope if someone make new topic aobut this plug in, in bledner forum, or daz forum)
in my pic,, it show I import animation (which conferted from genesis2 to genesis3 by Zaz777 script,) as duf pose files.
then merge some rigs (which I added hair tail bones) by this plug in. (one click merge) . and I made one more rig-set,, which rename all nodes whjich can work for blender symmetly (rHand to r.hand like that,,) now my actor can easy set symmetly pose as same as daz studio.
and I set constraing the re-name rig with the plug-in genareted rigs.. about mat,, I use mjcblender, then append mat and modify some nodes (which only I need to correct). anyway,, you may find many future,, and hope yours download,, try and test,, then send vendor,, many feed backs with thanks.
i get an error when trying to import; i followed his turorial. And have checked, no steps missed
EDIT
And an individual topic for this would be great.
After some research into the matter
I find that this is because frankly
Iray is a "Brute Force" pathtracer
with every few options for optimization
or customization of bounces based on materials
as we have when using blender in
Branched path tracing mode.
Hi nicstt,, OK, I make new individual topic,, in Nuts and Bolts
then user who downloaded , ask or reply the new topic please.
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/136706/daz-importer-for-blender
(thanks Marble,, it was perfectly wroong ^^; I do not know ,,,why I stick link for real support)
I saw some erroer, when I first try to use it (I save it as character,, first,, or I do not set same name about both "collada" and "scene.duf" or not lcoate same directories, ,, or not set library path (at current,, we can set 3 root direcotry only) , etc.. . Can you show me erroer message of Blencer in new topic of Nuts and bolt
then I get some reply tocay,, about my question in his blog,, then you can ask there too. or (I hope Thomas make new topic somday,, in daz and bldenr forum. when He hope so)
I think your link may be wrong - it takes me to the edit screen for a new message.
Here's your thread: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/136706/daz-importer-for-blender
Not sure if anyone else saw this: shadow catcher material (I guess it's really a render setting for objects, but close enough) is availble in a Blender experimental build: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiU46VHzEnY hopefully coming soon to a release version!
I have just started to finally 'get' blender myself lately, but have been trying off and on for years when I had time. I have 2.78a version. I just happen to stumble across this thread and happy to see others also using Blender. Blender was hard at first for me too and then the light bulb came on. :)
"The lightbulb coming on" in Blender is the most amazing transformation. I went from wondering why the program did everything weirdly to why every other program wasn't set up that way.
Of course it could always be better, but there's a whole lot to like about the setup once you "get it" that many ignore because it doesn't mesh with the way other programs tend to be set up.
i get an error when trying to import; i followed his turorial. And have che
Just found it, thank you.
Weird isn't it? :)
How does filmic Blender compare to using Iray Spectral rendering?
... They are completely unrelated things. Filmic is a tonemapping transformation to get a more photolike image (and in some respects spits out an image that contains more inteligable light information). But it is an external transformation, it doesn't change anything about the light within the renderer, its closest eqivalent in DS is the tonemapping panel (athough Blender offers more options)
Spectral rendering changes how the light is treated withing the renderer as a wavelength rathere than a RGB color
In point of fact, if I really wanted, I could render a render using spectral rendering in DS, save its exr output, load that in Blender and tonemap it in blender using filmic. (I've actually done semi-similar things before, Blender has some really nice compositing tools)
aaaand since this theads back have you seen the videos about blender's coming cloth improvements?
Theres also an expirimental build with it, Its not super, super, faster (still a good bit faster mind you) But its so much more robust and less prone to exploding that it takes way less time to get something that looks good, and I say this as someone who was actually pretty good at wrangling the old version. Also its just prettier looking now
Thanks, j cade!
That cloth sim looks amazing. I had a lot of trouble with a dynamic cloth sim bought elsewhere so I was looking at Blender. All that I read suggested that it was glacially slow so I didn't bother. Any idea when this new cloth will be included in an official version?
The old cloth sim is only glacially slow if your modelling sucks or you're using someone else's model which sucks. Although I guess people just want it to move with poses and things and I don't really use it in that sort of workflow.
Stopping the exploding would be very welcome. Honestly though I'm probably not going to use it for much more than seeing what gravity does with dresses or robes etc. until there is a userfriendly dynamic drape + manipulate feature (the way Marvelous Designer works.) Draping is all well and good but it's just way too much hassle when you can't tug little bits around manually. The video does show tying knots but not how the ribbon is actually being moved around to knot itself.
My modelling doesn't have the chance to suck because I haven't done any yet. Can't speak for anyone else's but I would be interested in exporting PA clothing from DAZ Studio. Good point about the manipulation. That's what attracted me to VWD but that just didn't work for me (constant crashing, although I know others really love it).
Ehh. The old cloth was slow even when I used perfectly even geometry as low res as I could manage (as in, subdivided planes sewn together for perfectly even grid based geometry, which is literally best case scenario for blenders old draping model)
You're probably going to to be waiting a while for manipulation features like MD, the simulation speeds would have to be much closer to real-time for that to be remotely feasible. I think the knot was done with vertices hooked to an empty, yes you can do that in blender (ctrl-h in edit mode is the easiest way), and no its not as easy to set up as in MD. But it does mean you can sort of tug things around in real time (or have them follow precise paths which if you're like me is posibly even more useful)
I guess it depends how old we're talking - I've only been using Blender's cloth sim for a couple of versions but it's improved noticeably in that time. It computes okay for me as long as I keep the model relatively simple to get the basic simulation - it'a definitely not ideal but it's also free. I like MDs a lot more and if I see it on sale on steam again (which it has been once already and they tend to do sales a lot more often) I'll probably pick it up because the discounts are pretty substantial. I only ever do still shots though, so I imagine the not ideal modelling from MD could cause issues for others transferring to other programs for animation, etc.
Filmic is not just a tonemapping transformation. It is a total replacement for the colorspace and an increased exposure value for the render engine output which is totally beyond simply tonemapping. All tonemapping can do is work with the existing pixels, which in the standard Blender sRGB space are limited. Switching to Filmic Blender is the equivalent of switching from compressed jpg images on a camera to RAW, and anyone who's worked with RAW will tell you there is no way adjusting the colors that are there in a jpg image is anyway equivalent to working with a RAW image. For more information check out these links:
Render with a wider dynamic range in cycles to produce photorealistic looking images (blender.stackexchange)
The Secret Ingredient to Photorealism | Blender Guru
I hadn't seen this yet, ty. :)
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term tonemapping but "view transform" which is what the creator uses. Filmic creates more *visible* dynamic range in the viewport and in exported 8 and 16-bit images but if you create a scene and render out an exr or hdr, all other things being equal, the image will be the same whether you use filmic or not. *Filmic does not alter any scene referred data*
Now, where filmic is pretty invaluable (aside from making your exported images nicer with less postwork or compositor fiddling) is in scene setup. Since the viewport displays a wider dynamic range intelligibly, it is much easier to set up lighting with realistic values.
But it is not remotely like switching from jpg to raw it's more like... switching from a camera with a viewfinder with really crappy contrast to one with really good contrast.
* It is exactly like jpg to RAW. When anyone goes to render an image sans exr, which is a majority of Blender users, the information available has been 'cooked down' to the standard sRGB space the same way a camera cooks down the image data from the sensor to the jpg and color correcting that is akin to trying to color correct the subsequent jpg. With exr images, one is exporting the RAW information but people then have to bring the information into a compositor to do anything meaningful with it. With Filmic, it is working with a much larger color space and expanded dynamic range. It's a question of where in the workflow the artist is able to work with the data, prior to compressing down to a very limited sRGB space or before compressing to that level and that is in the essence what working with RAW files are about. I'm not discounting your comment about exr files but short of what would be for many an involved compositing process Filmic provides the equivalent workflow of Lightroom with Raw files in the 3D space whereas simply using color grading on a render using the standard sRGB space is the equivalent of jpg.
This also discounts being able to use more realistic settings in lighting and not having to use 'hacks' to anywhere near the same extent. Watch Andrew Price's video. He also has some good tutorials on compositing for anyone interested, and yet he seems quite impressed with Filmic.
* [Edit] I would revise this to say that the reality is somewhat between what we are saying and it can delve into some complex concepts in differentiating the details, but what I was trying to get at is what I believe is a pretty accurate analogy for anyone who isn't in the position to delve into the deeper technological issues that for the most part are of little consequence for most of the artists here. For anyone who is interested in more detail, the links provided give a good starting point. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to try it out for one self and with the information gleened from that exercise one will be in a better position to understand what matters to one's self.
Another point that hasn't been mentioned in this conversation yet is the time to a reasonable convergence using Filmic vs standard sRGB in a low light or indoor scene. Andrew Price's (Blender Guru) video demonstrates this. This alone should be enough for many to look to installing and testing Filmic.
Here is another good treatment by CG Cookie
On a related note, for anyone who's tried Filmic they might have noticed that the 'old film' look was lost in translation. This video: Filmic Blender - combining the old film look shows how to restore them. An interesting aside, this video prompted this comment:
Gleb Alexandrov
The Filmic thread on Blender Artists
Some interesting bullet points from another article on blender.stackexchange that highlights some of the 'inbetween' technical information I referred to earlier (where I mentioned the details are somewhat inbetween the two explanations.)
... the default sRGB output view transform captures a mere two and a bit stops of light above middle grey from a Cycles render. This is entirely unnatural when compared to our learned response of examining photographic-like reproductions, which maps anywhere from six or more stops of light above middle grey to the display / output referred transform. The above images encode approximately six and a half stops of light to the display referred view, and as such, the scene properly reflects the lighting with respect to influence of bounces and other radiometric responses without cheats or hacks to bring the result into the display referred domain.
Congruent with what @tardis-maker states above, all View transforms operate strictly on the one-way output of the viewing transform. That is, it is a means of viewing a baseline look without adversely impacting your scene referred internal values. It is entirely non-destructive in terms of evaluating an image as compared against a node chain, which corrupts and mangles values as the data flows along the chain.
The article has a couple points previous to this which are also well worth the read and I recommend following the link and reading the original article to anyone interested.
Ok, so.. it might be overkill for some on this point, but Filmic is such a wave right now in the Blender community that it really does deserve the time so I'll post the relevant question and first two points mentioned in the above link:
Basically, the transform to screen space in the standard Blender implementation comes before one can modify any parameters and is wrong in many ways. Filmic attempts to correct this by correcting a number of issues with the default Blender implementation and also allowing for more flexibility by doing this in an earlier part of the workflow where non destructive corrections can be made.
What this question was asking and what J. Cade was getting at is that one could export to exr which is a true HDR/RAW type format and color grade/modify, which is true. But this is both out of the reach of many artists as it requires some advanced skills that Filmic does an end around on, and it does it 'faster' by all of the tests I've seen so far.
I should mention here that I highly respect J Cade and his viewpoints and appreciate his contributions to discussions. While I may present a different spin, I'm not really in disagreement.