Quote - Earlier I mentioned that the AO Strength parameter does nothing. This is a problem, because sometimes you need to adjust the degree of darkening. Consider the ball and cup - just because the cup blocks some light from the sky, doesn't mean the ball and cup should go completely black. There's still some light bouncing around inside the cup itself, so the ball would be partially lit by the cup.

In the attached image, I show how to make your own strength for the AO. Plug the AO into a Blender as shown, and adjust the darkest shadow you want by changing the Input_1 value to an appropriate shade of gray.

bagginsbill,

How would you set up the above if you have a texture already plugged in to the diffuse color node?  I know you mentioned something about a math node (mulitply) above, but I'm having trouble understanding it written out.  Could you provide a visual? 

Acadia,

That is a gorgeous render!  What is that architecture/building you are using?

Quote - Acadia,

That is a gorgeous render!  What is that architecture/building you are using?

Thanks :)  The building is the Daz haunted mansion,    The lights were my own.

The setup you quoted in your question didn't use the Diffuse_Color input. It used the Diffuse_Value input. That's the input that affects brightness while leaving color alone.

The next one I showed, not the one you quoted, had the shadow color trick and was plugged into the Diffuse_Color input instead, because I wanted to change brightness and color.

Which are you asking about really - something already in Diffuse_Color or something already in Diffuse_Value?

I guess it doesn't matter that much. In either case, whatever was already there would be plugged into both of the Blender inputs. This way, the entire Blender is multiplied with the original color or number. Attached is an example.

Or, you could use an additional node Math_Functions:Multiply (for Diffuse_Value) or Color_Math:Multiply (for Diffuse_Color) to multiply the original texture or number with the blender. But just jamming the original into the Blender inputs produces the same results. It looks slightly simpler (one less node) but in the math behind the scenes it's a tiny bit more work for Poser.

BB: which of those last two is actually better to use? Does the 2nd to last render faster since it's less internal math, or is it a negligable difference?

I'll probably just make a P6 material from it, and then use it and replace maps in surfaces to speed up the process...

The differences among all these are tiny - maybe .2 seconds on a really big image.

I choose on the basis of convenience. Think about how you might want to alter the shader from moment to moment and choose the version that facilitates that best.

If you intend to use colored shadows, clearly you must use the Diffuse_Color connection.

Otherwise, the Diffuse_Value solution is better because it usually doesn't interfere with other existing stuff.

As to whether to plug into the blender or multiply with the blender - multiply is convenient if you're going to switch around what is multiplied with - only one connection to change.

Thanks, BB.. I'm copying all of this for future reference. I've been using one main ao light, and 2 spots, and I think this method will really speed things up for me.

This is a really great thread bagginsbill, very useful for people trying to get more realism into their Poser renders.
When I used to render in Poser I always used AO as it greatly enhanced the realism, which you have shown & explained really well here. After using AO, renders done without it just look bland.
I've been a Vue user for some time now as GR, GI & AO are incorporated into the software with great effect. I think Poser users would get even more from the software if EF would put Global Radiosity into their next program. I've heard it can be faked in Poser, but I've never tried it.

I have Bagginsbills "faking AO" script using matmatics...

Hi guys,
I have been reading this thread, among others, to try and get a better understanding as to how I can make my renders look more realistic, or life-like, but since I am very new to the 3D graphics world the whole thing is extremely confusing. I have read many of bagginsbill's posts, all of which have been very interesting, although most of what I have read leaves me more confused than when I started...   lol  
(no fault to you BB...)

But I would still like to improve the quality of my 3D images, so I am still trying to understand all of this and rereading the posts here. 

I recently got the basic skin shader and bagginsbill's lights, and thank you for making those available, as well as all the tips and other things you have given freely to the community. Can anyone explain how to use the basic skin shader, I just copied the file and pasted it into notepad, but I am utterly confused as to where to go from here...
It is a python script I assume, so all I need to do is put it in the python folder perhaps?  and then run the script from the python window within poser?  

I'm sorry if these questions are as dumb as they get, but like I said I am very new to all of this, although I do have some experience with photoshop, I am totally new to 3D in general.

I am using photoshop 7, poser 7 and 3DS max 8...

I also have the V3 SAE figure, along with her head and body morphs, but only the low res textures, *(I think it's pretty bad that daz wants yet another 30 smalls for the high res textures for a model I already have paid almost 100 for, and after all the money I have already given them, but that is another discussion altogether...  lol).

I've looked at many of your renders and am really impressed with the results you are getting... 

Any help from you guys would be very much appreciated!

I find the lighting issue to be extremely difficult to deal with inside of poser, since the "pose" view looks SO much different than how it looks after being rendered. The rendered image looks so completely different that I find myself finally just settling with the best render I can get instead of making the right adjustments and getting better and better results...  make sense?
I suppose just a basic example of how to use the basic skin shader might be a good place for me to start, and just sort of go from there..

I doubt I will ever have the level of understanding that you guys have, but I sure would like to make better images and make some big improvements in my gallery, being quite unsatisfied at present with my results. My images look flat and lifeless, which is a major disappointment after putting in so many hours working on them.

thanks..

Marcus

okay sorry, please nevermind my previous post...

I was just browsing the forum main listing and found the section for python scripts, and it seems to be a simple matter of just changing the file extension and then putting the file in the right location and that's about all there is to it...

I looked for it before, but couldn't find it..

Hi marcus,

There are no dumb questions, at least not in CG. There are, occasionally, dumb answers :)

I believe you're talking about the UBSS script I posted at RDNA? That is not a normal Python script. It is a matmatic script. Matmatic is a Python module I wrote and distribute for free. Its purpose is to extend the Python language and library to tailor it to the purpose of making Poser materials and material collections. You cannot simply rename it and run it in Poser alone. You must first install matmatic, and run the matmatic compile.py script. It is that script which interprets my shader scripts.

The real purpose of matmatic is not to enable the creation of shaders. Poser already does that. Its purpose is to permit the rapid construction of mathematically rich shaders, intermediate to advanced stuff. Learning the basics is much better directly in the material room.

If you're just starting out, it really isn't necessary or even wise to go straight to scripted materials. Much better is to work directly in the material room, learning to create and connect nodes, and learning to adjust the parameters interactively. The beauty of the material room interface is you get to see a preview of each node in real time. So as you make changes, you get immediate feedback, piece by piece, of what you've ordered Poser to do.

Instead of working with the script, I suggest you work through the screen shots of the basic 3-node shader. After you succeed in that, then we can get you up and running on matmatic, and you can then use the special effects for moles, freckles, that require a bit more than a few basic nodes.

After that, will be a good time to learn to use matmatic, if only to be able to use some of my more advanced shaders. A lot of people never learn to write matmatic scripts and that's fine. There is plenty of value in being able to use the complex shaders I write and distribute as matmatic scripts. The reason I do that is that there is are a lot of parameters that get pretty tricky to manage yourself. If you can learn to fill in a few filenames and edit a few key numbers and colors, then the scripts will generate the nodes for you, using the subject matter expertise I've embedded in them to derive all the additional numbers and colors necessary to complete a shader.

Hi Bill,

Thank you for that response and it makes a lot of sense to me. Actually, after looking at the script and your post on RDNA, I realized exactly what you are talking about. Good advice, I will work with the manual setup that you posted to get a feel for it, then will go from there. 

I have a little bit of experience working with code, so I am not all that intimidated by it, having gone to an IT school in the past and working with the SQL code. But a starting point, as you pointed out, is always the best way to go about learning something like that.
I confess I have a tendancy to want to jump in head first out of sheer excitement of learning something new, but first things first...  lol

Thank you for taking the time to post a reply, I really appreciate it, and also for all the tips and work that you do for people who love poser. The material room can be a very daunting situation for most beginning poser users, I know it was for me when I first looked at it. After working with it a little bit over the last few months, I find myself now wanting to get more out of it as far as results, and seeing the results that you and some of the other more experienced people are getting is pretty exciting.

My job has a knack of dominating my time, but I will be working on this on a daily basis and hopefully get a better understanding of it within the next couple of weeks.

Thanks very much for the response,

Marcus

Quote -

The setup you quoted in your question didn't use the Diffuse_Color input. It used the Diffuse_Value input. That's the input that affects brightness while leaving color alone.

The next one I showed, not the one you quoted, had the shadow color trick and was plugged into the Diffuse_Color input instead, because I wanted to change brightness and color.

Which are you asking about really - something already in Diffuse_Color or something already in Diffuse_Value?

BagginsBill,

Apologies; I did get a little mixed up with what I was asking, there.  You have answered my question, though.  Thank you for posting your material room settings.  It's much easier for me to understand that way. :)

Quote - I doubt I will ever have the level of understanding that you guys have, but I sure would like to make better images and make some big improvements in my gallery, being quite unsatisfied at present with my results. My images look flat and lifeless, which is a major disappointment after putting in so many hours working on them.

thanks..

Marcus

I doubt that anyone will ever get to the level of understanding that bagginsbill has, but we all aspire to try.

I'm working on another image and after I got my scene set up, this is the first thread I dug out for reference.

I'll probably have to render the image in pieces and put it together in PSP, but the end results will be worth it.

Acadia, Thanks for giving this thread a bump. I was just looking for it!

Is there a way to change default setting for material AO setup wacro?
I always find myself changing the settings manually, mat group by mat group.

Quote - Is there a way to change default setting for material AO setup wacro?
I always find myself changing the settings manually, mat group by mat group.

If your talking about the Wacro supplied with P6/P7, then it's just a matter of adding a few lines to set the values you want as defaults for the created AO node.

Quote - > Quote - Is there a way to change default setting for material AO setup wacro?

I always find myself changing the settings manually, mat group by mat group.

If your talking about the Wacro supplied with P6/P7, then it's just a matter of adding a few lines to set the values you want as defaults for the created AO node.

I haven't messed with wacro's yet.
I take it they are somwere in P7 application directories... XML or CR2 lingo TXT files where I can just change a few numbers....

Quote - I haven't messed with wacro's yet.
I take it they are somwere in P7 application directories...

They're Python scripts, you'll find then in Runtime/Python/poserScripts/Wacros.

What needs adding is some method calls to set the values on the created AO node, which isn't quite as simple as setting some numbers (once you have the code in place, then it is).

Gotcha, thanks for the info :)
That may be a tad over my head - adding a new method in python, but, I might try anyway. It may even work.

Does anyone know how to:

• have the ground material option set to "Shadow_catch_only"
• add an AO node to that material
• have the AO show up in the render?

...I normally/often just want to render without any background, but still get ground shadows so I can alpha-blend in a background in post.  But so far, I haven't found a way to get AO on the ground, without rendering some ground as well (which I don't want, because then the alpha-masking doesn't work).

Thanks,

Keith

when you use the option shadow only you get ''shadow only''

you can make the ground green. the AO will work. then in post you make the green invisible.

Yeah, that's not really what I want though.. but thanks (I consider AO part of the shadow, for practical purposes).

how do you mean you dont want this?

Put this material on your ground. Do a test render, but do it with a background color so you can see if the ground is completely transparent. If it isn't, you need to raise the Diffuse_Value in the Diffuse node, until the lit part disappears.

Once you do that, change to Render Over Black, do your render, and save as PNG.

Quote - how do you mean you dont want this?

What I mean is... I want the alpha-channel of the resulting .tif file to not have any background pixels in it at all (green or otherwise) - just models, shadows and any AO.

Quote - This is my render, as shown by your browser, composited against the background color of this forum.

Cool - I'll go try that - thanks!

Worked like a champ - thanks much!

EDIT: It's a little difficult to see on this background color, but the head (using VSS, btw) is sitting down through the ground, so you can see the affect the AO is having on the part that goes through the floor.

Ok, that just looks weird for some reason...LOL!

Pretty cool - thanks again, BB.

It looks like that diffuse value will depend largely on the lights in the scene... I turned one of the overhead ones (from the rear) off and the ground showed up really dark, so I turned it back on for now :).

but where are the shadows from the light?

If the ground shows up, just raise the diffuse value - no need to turn the light back on.

But, yes, the numerical value produced for a lit part of the floor (versus shadowed) will obviously change.

Basically all I'm doing is using the Diffuse node to find out how brightly lit that spot is. If it's bright, I reduce the opacity (because I'm using 1 - diffuse). If it's not bright, then 1 - diffuse becomes a larger number, which increases the opacity.

The actual color of the floor is always black. Changing the opacity introduces a corresponding change in the alpha value only. This creates the "shadows" when you superimpose it on any background.

Quote - but where are the shadows from the light?

Perhaps you need to adjust your monitor? They're very clearly there.

If you're using Internet Explorer withed tabbed browsing, a very easy way to see these pictures against a white background is this:

Press and hold the mouse button on a picture - then drag it onto the tab bar of the current page. Then let go.

I love this thread!!! :)

Quote - but where are the shadows from the light?

In the 'swamp patch' image, I moved the main shadow-casting light higher up, so there's not much of a visible shadow, but the one with the head definately has one.

i decided to do an AO map for apollo.
i think on the face i should concentrate on the ears,nose, and around the eyes. 
plus fingers,arms and legs.

i have been looking for threads about AO and how AO is better then IBL AO. but i didnt find it.

so can anyone explain to me why exactly is material AO better then IBL AO? i know that in the materials you have more control. but lets say that i dotn want any control. just normal AO defautl.
why is it so bad?

thank you.

1. AO map
2. normal 100% AO

this is the map. i made it in photoshop black with white background. why white? so that you can control in the shader how big the difference is.
black is 100% AO,grey is 50% and white is 0% AO.

i will change the ear. because this is not how it is in the reality. only the inside is 100% black.

AO is 50%. only around the eyes,inside the nose and ears it is 100%

Not sure where you are going with this, but the moment you change the morph/pose/expression, those maps wont be correct anymore. eg if you raise the arms, there will no longer be that much AO in the armpits. Or if you clench your fist, the inner nooks and spaces will be almost black.

This is why AO is always calculated at render time and you can't really paint a map of it. Well not unless your object is never going to move or deform at all, like in a game environment.

I think his map is intended to control "where AO occurs" and "to what degree it occurs", not adding a psuedo-AO itself.  In other words, modulating the computed AO.

Yes I think ice-boy is trying to create a map to modulate, specifically to decrease, the amount of AO that is applied.

To that end, ice-boy, you should not be putting black into the ears, if you're trying to make the ears less dark. That was your goal, right? You said the default AO calculation for the ears was too aggressive, so you wanted it to be modulated by a map that would prevent it from going too dark.

I have two identical dimpled spheres. They differ in which direction the dimple is occluded. On the left the ground is occluded and the sky is not. On the right its the opposite.

Now, given that the geometry is identical, Poser AO calculates a generic darkening for the deepest part of the dimple that is dark. It is the same for both. This is wrong.

AO is a cheat. It is not a perfect substitute for a true global illumination model.

What SHOULD occur here is the dimple on the left should not be so dark. Why? Because the sky is NOT occluded, and most of the light comes from the sky. But that's not how AO works. AO doesn't care where the light really is coming from in your IBL. It just says - here is a deep recessed spot - I shall make it dark. Even if the recess faces straight at the brightest part of the sky, it will be the same amount of dark.

So what is the solution? The solution is to not use Poser.

OK that's an asinine solution.  :) What is the Poser solution, then?

Well the solution is to make some more assumptions and make some more cheats.

Assumption one - The sky is brighter than the ground.
Assumption two - Apollo's head is right-side-up.

Ok given these assumptions, we can say which part of the ear should not be so dark (because it faces up.) We make a map that prevents AO from fully darkening that spot.

Are we limiting our situation - sure. Basically we're making it more correct for some situations, and less correct for others (Apollo is standing on a 70's disco glowing dance floor, or Apollo is hanging upside-down from a tree). If it is more correct for YOUR situation, then it is a good thing. If if is less correct for YOUR situation, but more correct for 80 other people, it is still a good thing.

Ah stupid me! I should listen to myself.

I said - faces up = brighter = less AO.

Duh.

Give me a couple minutes - will build a shader that does this automatically.

I am so stupid.