We see some around the rim, because my ray-traced shadow bias is not low enough to throw a shadow on something that close.

If I increase the light's ray bias to be larger than the distance from cornea to pupil, then it would light the whole iris. But that would cause other problems.

After I get finished with my current project I'll see if I can model an anatomically correct eyeball. Not for Antonia, just for experimentation purposes and whatnot, and upload it. It will be fairly hi-res, probably. I actually have one halfway done, since it's been a big interest of mine for a while. 3D eyes are almost always dead looking. It is a very difficult thing to overcome. It may look great and real in one situation, but totally fake in another. Obviously a real eye looks real all the time, regardless of lighting setup.

Yeah I had mentioned a few posts up I had pulled the cornea shape out some. That's why I had to sub-d it in the first place.

Observe, however, that the pupil is unnaturally sharp edged. That's because we have the pupil set to black. It should not be - it should have the iris color map applied.

My point here, again, is the pupil material zone serves no purpose at all.

Quote -
Observe, however, that the pupil is unnaturally sharp edged. That's because we have the pupil set to black. It should not be - it should have the iris color map applied.

I disagree completely. A pupil is a hole, an opening - there's nothing there. I think the key to getting a realistic pupil is to use no texture map, but to have a refractive and absorptive surface for it, for light to interact with it [more] naturally, along with a realistic lens and retina.
Well... maybe when we're all using Maxwell Render, that is. ;-)

You disagree that the iris fades into the pupil? The iris doesn't have a sharp edge. It curves down to form the hole, and the light fades as it turns away. It's not a sharp corner.

The iris is made of bundled fibers. They fade at the tips where they enter the pupil.

No, I don't disagree with that. I meant I disagree with the idea of using a texture for the pupil itself.
The eye is a complex piece of work, not easily recreated in 3D, and all these things you're mentioning is exactly why that is so.
That's what I meant by saying the eye model I make will be hi-res - to get things like that in the geometry, and not have to deal with textures to fake it.

Anyhow, I'll have to get back to you on all this. I'm doing a complete UV remap of Antonia, and have been at it for a few days now. It's getting close to where I can start stitching the parts together.
The map looks unusual in that for now, it's all grouped together according to its components and laid out in multiple regions, outside of 0-1. Which Poser could technically deal with, as opposed to a layered map, but people would have to manually input the coordinates for each region.

The main differences in this one is in the head. It will take up more UV space and the skull/scalp UVs are the same relative size as the rest of the head. Other minor differences throughout, too.

Comments/suggestions certainly are welcomed. Remember though before saying it, it still needs to be stitched together, and most of the seams you now see will be gone after that, and hidden away more discretely, and the UVs on the limbs, hands, and feet will be the same relative size as the rest of the torso.

It's still very much a WIP.

Ignore some of those seemingly stray vertices floating around. That's just Lightwave being stupid.

it's probably hard to see, but I didn't want to upload a 4K image and cause everyone to be scrolling sideways. ;-)

It would probably be better to have a texture map at least on the edges of where the iris ends, on the pupil edges, and fade to nothing quickly.

bagginsbill: The link to the latest Antonia is in my signature. I'm getting close to my 3GB bandwidth limit for this month, though. If that's the case, let me know.. You're correct, this needs to be corrected and updated on the developers site. I hadn't noticed, probably because most people on there follow this thread on a regular basis.

If you give me a sketch of an eye cross-section that works for you, I'll build it that way. We can have a "most realistic eye" competition with the winner becoming Antonia's default eyes or something.

I think I introduced the pupil material as a quick fix for bad eye texture maps. I'd rather have a sharp edge there than a highlight directly on the pupil.

Edit: Also, you don't have to turn it black. You can use the iris texture if you happen to have a decent one. Or you can use it with a mask, like the lip material.

MikeJ: Any chance you could get the leg UVs the way bagginsbill wants them without making too many compromises elsewhere? You have way more experience in UV mapping than me, and you've got the better software.

bagginsbill: I think the mask I made was 8 bit grayscale. I can use multiple color channel to increase the resolution if that helps. I can make it bigger, too. Just let me know.

(I'm still at work with no access to my Poser stuff. Will upload the original mask as soon as I can.)

I noticed the link to the latest already and got it. Haven't had time to test it. I've got to go to bed - nearly 2 AM here.

Quote -
MikeJ: Any chance you could get the leg UVs the way bagginsbill wants them without making too many compromises elsewhere? You have way more experience in UV mapping than me, and you've got the better software.

I don't see any reason why not, but I don't know what you mean about how BB wants them.
If you mean all attached, such as the legs to the torso, and the feet attached to the legs, and each foot "pelted", that was my plan for when I start stitching the parts together. "Moving and sewing" in UV parlance. ;-)

But I'm up for anything, really, as long as I have suggestions. :-)
The only thing I really think should stay the way it is is that the head needs to take up as much UV space as possible, and the scalp needs to be part of it.

Quote -
My point here, again, is the pupil material zone serves no purpose at all.

Well it does if one intends on rendering it outside of Poser- in my case, I would want to have it there so I can make it transparent, or use a transparency map on it to make a soft transition in transparency from the iris inward. Of course I could simply make a new mat group if I wanted to, easily enough.
If there is a material group for the pupil, it can still have the Iris texture applied to it - assuming it's UV mapped that way of course.
But if it's simply not there, then people are stuck with using a texture map on it and don't have any options for using separate maps on it unless they make their own new group, and I'm sure a whole lot of Poser users have no idea how to do that, so I can't see any good reason  to remove it.

As long as the UVs for the iris and the pupil are consistent in size, it would be relatively easy to make good textures and trans maps for achieving the fade effect to make it look more real.

MikeJ: look at the stockings render bagginsbill had on the last page or so. The idea is that for the legs, a horizontal line on the texture should become a horizontal line on the figure. I found that hard to realize, but maybe with the full version of UVLayout it's easier to do.

By the way, why does everyone insist on mapping head the way you did? I don't get it.

Quote - MikeJ: look at the stockings render bagginsbill had on the last page or so. The idea is that for the legs, a horizontal line on the texture should become a horizontal line on the figure. I found that hard to realize, but maybe with the full version of UVLayout it's easier to do.

By the way, why does everyone insist on mapping head the way you did? I don't get it.

OK, I'll have a look at that. Hopefully when he's around tomorrow he can elaborate some.

As for the head UV mapping, there are a lot of ways you can do it, but it seems texture artists prefer it that way, since it makes texturing a lot easier in all ways, from photoshopping an image over it, to painting a texture by hand, and especially for painting in 3D for textures and normal and displacement maps, such as in Zbrush or Mudbox.

You end up with two seams, one at the neck line and one up the back of the head, and all the UVs are uniform in size (relative to the model's polygons, of course), making things a whole lot easier for texturing.

EDIT:
Actually I think I know what you mean about the line up the leg. Shouldn't be too difficult to do that.

Except for the lips, which probably should be a separate island, for more detail. Depends on how large you want to go with textures though.

I'll be hoping for suggestions on that.

MikeJ: I suggested to make the lips a separate island. It didn't go over well. :laugh:

bagginsbill: could you take more shots of irises, by an chance? :laugh: Yours are the first I see that don't have huge highlights all over them, including "reference" images on subscription sites.

Quote - MikeJ: I suggested to make the lips a separate island. It didn't go over well. :laugh:

Well personally I think it's better to have them separate.
I guess anyone who doesn't like that idea can make their case here. ;-)

But if the lips are part of the face island, they will take up a very teeny part of the UV region, meaning you then have to use a very large texture to compensate, to get any detail into them.
That's not a big deal with computers these days with a whole lot of RAM and high powered processors, but still, efficiency is a good thing nevertheless.

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that. It's not particularly difficult to select the lips in photoshop from a good source image and paste them over the UVs.
A little translate, a little scale, a little clone, and some liquify, and Bob's yer uncle. ;-)

Well, it's up to you. Since Antonia already has a texture, people might be less critical of your alternate one. I for one have always said that it would be good to have some alternatives.

Anyhow, I needed to take a break from UV mapping and decided to have some fun.
I called this picture Wax Antonia, but I don't think I quite achieved wax. I did achieve fun though. ;-)

bagginsbill: I uploaded the height mask to the developers site. But you're right, it's too imprecise. You can blame Poser, because that's what I rendered it with. I'll see if I can think of any way to make it better.

Quote - ...

So where is 114?

...

Hey bb...to answer your question if you haven't snagged her already, you can get the latest Antonia in any post that odf's made...the link is in his signature ;o).

Laurie

Quote -
Anyhow, I needed to take a break from UV mapping and decided to have some fun.
I called this picture Wax Antonia, but I don't think I quite achieved wax. I did achieve fun though. ;-)

I think you achieved jade-pretty cool!

K, the new morphs are up on the dev site, however I was unable to upload the original unsquished morph files for some reason (I split them into two archives, just under 8 meg each). Not sure why that is, but if anyone needs them, I'll find a way to get them to you. I may need to put them on my own website :o).

Have fun.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote -

You disagree that the iris fades into the pupil? The iris doesn't have a sharp edge. It curves down to form the hole, and the light fades as it turns away. It's not a sharp corner.

No, I don't disagree with that. I meant I disagree with the idea of using a texture for the pupil itself.
The eye is a complex piece of work, not easily recreated in 3D, and all these things you're mentioning is exactly why that is so.
That's what I meant by saying the eye model I make will be hi-res - to get things like that in the geometry, and not have to deal with textures to fake it.

---

Anyhow, I'll have to get back to you on all this. I'm doing a complete UV remap of Antonia, and have been at it for a few days now. It's getting close to where I can start stitching the parts together.
The map looks unusual in that for now, it's all grouped together according to its components and laid out in multiple regions, outside of 0-1. Which Poser could technically deal with, as opposed to a layered map, but people would have to manually input the coordinates for each region.

The main differences in this one is in the head. It will take up more UV space and the skull/scalp UVs are the same relative size as the rest of the head. Other minor differences throughout, too.

Comments/suggestions certainly are welcomed. Remember though before saying it, it still needs to be stitched together, and most of the seams you now see will be gone after that, and hidden away more discretely, and the UVs on the limbs, hands, and feet will be the same relative size as the rest of the torso.

It's still very much a WIP.

Ignore some of those seemingly stray vertices floating around. That's just Lightwave being stupid.

it's probably hard to see, but I didn't want to upload a 4K image and cause everyone to be scrolling sideways. ;-)

Wow Mike, that's looking AWESOME!!!! I told ya, I'm gonna get you to UV map EVERYTHING I need mapped from now on...lmao! ;o).

Dang it, forgot...

Just as a side note folks, I never did find a good way to move the mouth up and down without distorting the lips and/or the chin and bottom of the nose. If someone else can find a way, that would be awesome ;o).

Laurie

Quote - K, the new morphs are up on the dev site, however I was unable to upload the original unsquished morph files for some reason (I split them into two archives, just under 8 meg each). Not sure why that is, but if anyone needs them, I'll find a way to get them to you. I may need to put them on my own website :o).

Have fun.

Laurie

Don't worry. It's not too hard to pull a bunch of morphs out of a cr2 file with Dimension3D's PMD editor.

(It helps to know which morphs to look for, so common name prefixes are nice. But since I made all the original morphs, I should know which ones not to pick, shouldn't I. :laugh:)

The unsquished morph files are here guys:

allenart.yolasite.com/antonia-development

Quote - > Quote - K, the new morphs are up on the dev site, however I was unable to upload the original unsquished morph files for some reason (I split them into two archives, just under 8 meg each). Not sure why that is, but if anyone needs them, I'll find a way to get them to you. I may need to put them on my own website :o).

Have fun.

Laurie

Don't worry. It's not too hard to pull a bunch of morphs out of a cr2 file with Dimension3D's PMD editor.

(It helps to know which morphs to look for, so common name prefixes are nice. But since I made all the original morphs, I should know which ones not to pick, shouldn't I. :laugh:)

I deleted all the ones I was able to delete that weren't mine odf....sorry bout that ;o).

Laurie

Quote - Dang it, forgot...

Just as a side note folks, I never did find a good way to move the mouth up and down without distorting the lips and/or the chin and bottom of the nose. If someone else can find a way, that would be awesome ;o).

Laurie

I could do that easily enough. You mean the whole mouth up and down, like slid up/down the face? Or do you mean in general, for specific morphs?

Quote -

I think you achieved jade-pretty cool!

Thank you. :-)

Yeah, looking at now after sleeping for a few hours it does look more like jade than wax.

Quote - > Quote -

I think you achieved jade-pretty cool!

Thank you. :-)

Yeah, looking at now after sleeping for a few hours it does look more like jade than wax.

Thank you for posting that. It looks awesome. I love jade! :biggrin:

Thanks a lot, mylemonblue. :-)

Quote -
Wow Mike, that's looking AWESOME!!!! I told ya, I'm gonna get you to UV map EVERYTHING I need mapped from now on...lmao! ;o).

Thanks again, Laurie. It will be  alot better when it's finished.
I'm not going to do any real work on it today though, I don't think. I still have to unwrap the teeth so I'll probably do that, but I'm going to wait to see if any new suggestions come in before I start stitching it all together.
Either way, I'll resume working on it tomorrow.

And as I told you already, I'd be happy to UV anything you have. :-)

Quote - I could do that easily enough. You mean the whole mouth up and down, like slid up/down the face? Or do you mean in general, for specific morphs?

That's what I mean - up n down ;o).

Laurie

bagginsbill: I've been able to get the height mask for the legs considerably smoother, but it's still not very accurate. The height lines are noticeably wiggly. I think that's a fundamental flaw in the way I coerce this out of Poser.

I used the low-resolution mesh so far, and will try the high-res one next, which should give somewhat better results. If Poser could 'bake' a shader into the texture map, the problem would be easy to solve. Does anyone happen to know if Blender can do it?

But first I have to go catch some sleep. :sleep:

Quote -

That's what I mean - up n down ;o).

Laurie

That's what I figured. I'll see what I can do...

Don't go crazy working on it. It's just an idea.

It begs the question, though, whether or not the leg UV mapping is too coarse. I've seen this problem on Daz figures. Suppose somebody were trying to simply draw a clean-edged line around the thigh onto this UV map. Would it look good, or pixellated?

Quote -
It begs the question, though, whether or not the leg UV mapping is too coarse. I've seen this problem on Daz figures. Suppose somebody were trying to simply draw a clean-edged line around the thigh onto this UV map. Would it look good, or pixellated?

Not sure what you mean.
It would depend on the size of the image being used whether it looked pixellated or not, and of course on the size of the brush.
In 3D you only get that 0-1 space to work with, typically. Or it can be 0 to -1, -1 to -2,  and so on, if you get into regions, but each region is still that square with a fixed number of units. Your UV map can exceed the boundary of that square, but after it passes the edges it begins to repeat.

So then, image maps will use that entire square, whatever region it may be in. You can have an 8K image map and it will only be pixellated if the original image you applied over it were pixellated. If you're painting on it in a 2D program, you're not going to get pixellation.
Obviously though, if you have, say, a 4K image map and you apply it over an 8K UV template, you will get pixellation.
However, if you use, say, a 256 pixel map, you will see pixellation the closer the camera gets to the surface.

The rule generally is, your image map need only be as large as the largest render. A 1K image map will look great in an 800x600 render, but terrible in a 2048x2048 render. In a close-up, that is. You will have pixellation to a certain degree.

The UV map has no say in pixellation. If it's a good map it will be distortion-free, but pixellation comes from the image quality and size, not from the UV map.

Quote -
Does anyone happen to know if Blender can do it?

I think Blender can do that, but I won't swear to it.

Actually, an extremely distorted UV map could cause pixellation, as it would stretch the image between vertex points, but it would have to be pretty distorted.
Even so, using Photoshop's tools, someone good enough can compensate by stretching the image in the areas where the UV map is stretched and distorted, and clone stamping or painting in between.

I might as well mention that one of the good things about the higher end apps is that you can actually move the UV points around to compensate for a stretched image if you need to, and see the results in real time.

Quote - > Quote -

Does anyone happen to know if Blender can do it?

I think Blender can do that, but I won't swear to it.

Never mind. Apparently I can trick Poser into doing what I want for special cases like this. For a moment there, I thought there was a problem with my idea, but as it turns out it works fine.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote -

Does anyone happen to know if Blender can do it?

I think Blender can do that, but I won't swear to it.

Never mind. Apparently I can trick Poser into doing what I want for special cases like this. For a moment there, I thought there was a problem with my idea, but as it turns out it works fine.

That's always so great when things work the way you think they will, ain't it? ;o).

Laurie