I dont know what happened to M4's ears

I have a ways to go to get it to look more natural I think

No image attached...

I've got no issue with ears either. This is Mariko wearing the Post-240 shader by BB (scripted in matmatic):

No, issues I'm encountering with this shader is more related to the original skin texture image... but I think I'm getting that sorted.

I'm a fiddler and a cobbler and a tinkerer... never happy... :blink:

Currently, with colour map adjustments and a few tweaks of the shader (using skin2 instead of skin1 in the scatter node - don't ask me for justification, just messin' :biggrin: ):

Not sure if the blue-ish region around her mouth is something within the colour map or if it's something brought out by the shader...

I sent the pic and there was something wrong with the upload and then I had to leave for work

Here it is again

I am using the warrior template for M4 and even if I have the ears human size, it does the same thing when I use SSS on it. if no SSS everything is fine

I did Use Post 240 shader

I haven't encountered this problem up to now. I will try to simulate that effect for understanding it.

What kind of lights do you use? I see almost no shadows, are they switched off? Do you use a skydome or an IBL? Was indirect light switched on? 

*edit:

In one of the skin threads at RDNA someone had a similar problem, which was caused by the ambient light he used. Could that be a reflection from a sky dome ? 

I am not using a skydome or IBL

huh...I don't know why there is no shadow, I will have to figure that out

Don't know if it's directly related to your problem withnthevears, but you should have "Use displacement maps" checked in your render settings. I also think you need to work on understanding lighting a bit more. An infinite light is like a sun light, a light that illuminates the entire scene, and you have three of them. Probably why you have no shadows. With that much light, there are no shadowy areas.

Quote - Don't know if it's directly related to your problem withnthevears, but you should have "Use displacement maps" checked in your render settings. I also think you need to work on understanding lighting a bit more. An infinite light is like a sun light, a light that illuminates the entire scene, and you have three of them. Probably why you have no shadows. With that much light, there are no shadowy areas.

Particularly since they're positioned the way they are. You might want to read what's been said on here regarding ray-traced shadows (vs depth-mapped, which really is sort-of the pov approach to shadows, now) particularly by Bagginsbill. You'll never go back.

Attached Link: https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/file-cabinet/BBGammaMeter.zip?attredirects=0&d=1

I know have shadows and it seemed to have fixed M4 earsm which I don't see how it did that, but I am not complaining

Thank you

I just read what BDDesign, RobynsVeil and bantha said
THe lights are ones I made for a project I was doing back when V3 and A3 were big, They worked real good with Aiko 3 on a stage, but not on this I guess.
I was too concerned about the ears to even look at the lights until bantha asked what kind of light I used.
I still don't know what happened to the ears, but they seem ok now
I never was any good at lighting a scene

Thank you very much

bantha, how do I use this gammameter?

Nevermind I just searched for and and learned what it does

The shadows seem a bit harsh, still. Dial in some blur at them, 10 should be fine, I guess. Are the shadows ray traced? The small shadow below the woman's pendant look as if they were depth mapped with a much too small map.

Do you use Poser 9 or Pro? Do you use tone mapping or gamma correcture when rendering?

and I gave you the wrong link. The gamma-meter will still show you if you have too much light in the scene, but for the speculars, you need the light meter instead. 

Quote - I Changed lights 1 and 3 to Spot and left light 2 as infinite and changed all three lights to Ray Trace shadows. To see if I can fix the shadows.

I know have shadows and it seemed to have fixed M4 earsm which I don't see how it did that, but I am not complaining

Thank you

They are ears, which means they are thin, fleshy areas (figuratively speaking in this case, of course!). Light was essentially pouring through them. If they were real people, you'd have singed their ears right off with all that sunlight. :biggrin:

I usually alter the scale a little, I think the default is too much like wax. Stupid thing is, when I try to make wax and use similar settings,  it DOESN'T look like wax LOL

Oh and I get the same bluish tinge a few places, it's noticable on his knees especially. 

I changed the blur to 10 on all 3 lights

all 3 lights have, 10 should be fine, I guess. Are the shadows ray traced? The small shadow below the woman's pendant look as if they were depth mapped with a much too small map.

I use Pro. I use gamma correcture when rendering

BDDesignL that makes total sence about what you said about the ears.

I did have way too much light

Here is a pic with the shadow blur set to 10, the shadows are much softer now

Thanks again for your help

Steve

I don't know what you consider "looking too much like wax", but I'd say that this pick looks too much like wax, I'm afraid. I've gotten what I consider much less wax-like results with the shader. see attached.

Shadow min bias should be set low to catch better shadow detail in folds, try 0.1 as a starter.  The trick with gamma correction active in your render settings, use less lighting rather than more.  Old habits die hard if you are used to using that arrangement in earlier Poser versions.  A self illuminating sky dome, like BB's envsphere will cast additional light to your scene, especially if you combine it with IDL in your render settings.  If IBL is a consideration, then the color information used in the light should match closely with your background.  However, IBL lighting is more effective with HDR images.

Are these neat variant SSS shaders all of you are showing available anywhere?  (Mine don't look like that.  :lol:  :crying:)

You are using PP2012, aren't you?

Quote - You are using PP2012, aren't you?

Yes.  So far my efforts are disappointing.  I'll have to read the RDNA thread more carefully, perhaps.  :laugh:

Attached Link: http://www.runtimedna.com/forum/showthread.php?63200-SSS-on-Human-Figures/page12

http://www.runtimedna.com/forum/showthread.php?63200-SSS-on-Human-Figures/page12

look for post 240

It is BB's Shader

I wrote an explanation of the Post 240 shader later in the same thread, which my be useful for other material room novices to understand what's going on - ie, what the various nodes do and why they're there.

The explanation is at post 499 on page 25 of the thread. BB explains the mystery nodes on the following page.

And if you want the matmatic script for that shader, happy to share it with you, Cage.

Ooh.  Thanks, guys.  I'll try to go through that thread more carefully.  I think part of my trouble is that I've never learned to light a scene decently.  I think I may have a long-standing tendency to over-light, and all of my shaders... umm... reflect that fact.  Hmm.

Robyn, I've never figured out how to use MatMatic!  :lol:  But I wouldn't say no to an example shader, either.  I could learn to use BB's MM, perhaps, if properly motivated by the need to use it to build a good skin shader.

You don't need matmatic to build a skin shader. Just load the one I posted. There's a big difference between parameter tweaking and actually designing a shader.

You mostly just need to tweak. The time to build a shader different from mine is when you want to do a mask-and-blend effect.

Quote - You don't need matmatic to build a skin shader. Just load the one I posted. There's a big difference between parameter tweaking and actually designing a shader.

You mostly just need to tweak. The time to build a shader different from mine is when you want to do a mask-and-blend effect.

Good to know.  :laugh:  Erm... you wouldn't happen to have satin/silk and metallic lurex shaders that are as technically accurate as the skin, would you?  I'm not sure my existing frequent-use shaders are compatible with this SSS skin.  Like I said, I may have been over-lighting a bit.  :unsure:  :lol:

BBNylon2 material is in this thread:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2803439&page=5#message_3662863

If you load that, and change the following parameter nodes:

PM:Density = 1

PM:Opacity = 1

PM:Weave Bump = 0

You will get what you see in the attached image.

quinlor posted some interesting stuff (using matmatic - heh) here:

http://www.runtimedna.com/forum/showthread.php?36906-Procedural-Silk

You would need to run matmatic to generate the shaders from the script provided in that thread.

Hi BB,

about this shader, what node can i remove to replace them by the fresnel blender ?

I just tested that. I found that the "PM:IOR" is not connected to any reflection, or it is just plain wrong. I may have made some mistake.

So - it basically doesn't reflect. Just go ahead and add the FB + R to the normal places - Reflection_Value and _Color.

Quote - You don't need matmatic to build a skin shader. Just load the one I posted. There's a big difference between parameter tweaking and actually designing a shader.

You mostly just need to tweak. The time to build a shader different from mine is when you want to do a mask-and-blend effect.

This is true. I certainly don't use it as BB intended: to allow math and Python to create shaders. My approach is more about automation. That in itself makes the whole thing worth learning.

I found the FB is a little more speed than this.

EDIT : the final shader use IOR 1.53, i want replace all with only FB node ;)

Oh - I remember now what BBNylon does with IOR. It doesn't deal with reflection. It deals with the bending of light so that it does not pass through so many virtual fibers. When the cloth is sideways, a straight line-of-sight path would seem to indicate that we have to look through a lot of fibers, and it should be very opaque. But if the fibers are refractive this does not happen - the light bends in from the side, towards the skin.

So - the shader has no reflective calculation at all. What you show above is a transparency calculator, and a compensator on the specular due to increasing transparency.

You can use the Fresnel_Blend with freedom, knowing it has nothing to do with the above. Just leave that stuff alone.

If you want, you can keep the IOR parameter - run that into the Fresnel_Blend so everything is in agreement.

Ok thx ;)

PS : it's a real pleasure to work with blur reflexion without waiting :D