I dunno if it has more pop or not by my standards.  If I hadn't seen the first, I probably wouldn't have too much problem with the second.  But when I compare the two, especially at the original size (which I didn't post) the second loses the vividness of the colors, even if some aspects about it are clearer.  While the first isn't perfect, the second seems more washed out color wise to me.

i have to admit I've done all the renders in this thread with Gamma Correction off. I got that washed out look and turned it off.

I realize that if I were to study and went under the guidance of the experts here i could "get somewhere good" with it, but for the moment it has been easier to turn it off.

::::: Opera :::::

BB's envirosphere, IDL only, GC and SSS enabled.

First the original shader. There is noticeable blue bleed through.

Bleed through is gone.

Two lights with SSS and GC enabled.

I dropped the Diffuse to 1.1 and increased the gain to .6 (as well as making a partial fix on bump/displacement) and I got this (only the face and lips were updated).  Probably the closest thing to "realistic" as I've ever got even though some would rightly say it's probably more artistic and my second showing was more realistic.  Whatever the case, for at least this render I'm starting to edge closer to uncanny valley territory (at least when you compare it to my normal stuff).

Bleedthrough shows up.

Except for the lips and their BIS, that looks pretty good.

That looks like vanilla sky yes?

the texture is very detailed and the advanced shaders it comes with are different from most other sets.  It uses the colour texture for bump, with a procedural specualar controlle dby a mask image.  It also included a scatter map that I had no idea what to do with.. I'm pretty sure on my first run I plugged it into the background of the colour texture.. not sure if that did anything at all ... I used it in a sss shader set up once that worked really well.. Unfortunately I was pretty much blindly reconnecting nodes and I have no idea what I did that made it work so well.   My recent attempt didn't work quite so well.

Quote - Okay, I did one more render before I head off for the night.

 

I dropped the Diffuse to 1.1 and increased the gain to .6 (as well as making a partial fix on bump/displacement) and I got this (only the face and lips were updated).  Probably the closest thing to "realistic" as I've ever got even though some would rightly say it's probably more artistic and my second showing was more realistic.  Whatever the case, for at least this render I'm starting to edge closer to uncanny valley territory (at least when you compare it to my normal stuff).

Agreeing with Vilters, to a point. I agree that this issue didn't arise with Service Release 1: SM identified as a known issue with sss, something that SR1 wasn't going to fix.

My own observations are as follows: it appears to affect certain figures more noticably than others. I'm guessing this has more to do with the difference in geometry than anything else... same shader, same lights, same camera, different figure, what changes? geometry.

Quote - That looks like vanilla sky yes?

Yeah, but I removed everything but her base color map.  I won't post the set up but the texture was clearly designed with the p7 crowd in mind.  Hopefully the creator will make an updated version of the shader that's P9/PP12 compatible.

With the right textures (VS) and the right shaders (BB's 240) even an idiot like me can make something that looks half decent.

There are some masking maps in the texture set that might be worth preserving.  I think one is for displacement, one for the texture map and another that is called a scatter mask.  I'd suggest studying the origional shader and seeing how these masks are used and if it is worth keeping any of them in the SSS shader.  The texture is super detailed, but sometimes it seems the details are a bit overpowering when I use just the texture maps.  For instance the minute skin features like pores and blemishes stand out a bit too harshly.  I cant say for sure but I wouldnt be surprised if that is what those masking files are for.  It wouldnt hurt to keep them in your shader tree and leave them disconnected until you can figure if there is value in applying them or not.

Quote - > Quote - That looks like vanilla sky yes?

Yeah, but I removed everything but her base color map.  I won't post the set up but the texture was clearly designed with the p7 crowd in mind.  Hopefully the creator will make an updated version of the shader that's P9/PP12 compatible.

With the right textures (VS) and the right shaders (BB's 240) even an idiot like me can make something that looks half decent.

Here is a sphere with Skin1-type scatter.

Inside are two smaller spheres. One has white .8 diffuse, the other has marble-type scatter.

Is there anybody who cannot tell where the two inner spheres are? I doubt it.

Is there anybody who can tell which inner sphere has scatter and which does not? I doubt that, too.

Individually disabling the following had no effect:

Visible in Raytracing

Casts Shadows

Light Emitter

However, individually disabling either of the following did make it stop:

Visible in Camera

Visible

I'd guess that the one that is white is in the top left, the one with scatter is in the right, halfway between the middle and the side.

Of course, you probably wanted to try a layering effect so both of them are probably centered in the sphere with the diffuse marble one outside of the white only one and both of them are just a little smaller than the outer one.

Bill are you saying these are different results than you would have expected to see pre SR1

I know the occluded surface scatter problem existed before SR1, but did SR1 make it worse?

Quote - I'd guess that the one that is white is in the top left, the one with scatter is in the right, halfway between the middle and the side.

Dang it, you got it right. Of course, half of all guessing monkeys and geese could also get it right, since there were only two options. grin

Jokes aside, the difference you see, if any, are due to position and angle. If I switch the shaders, nothing changes.

PS: I love to talk about probability and statistics with simple aphorisms. Sometimes I surprise people. For example: did you know that half of all doctors are below average in medical competence? Yep. By definition.

Default 'Dublin' texture and shader, except that I cranked up the strength of the bump on lips and face. Light is Mec4D "Sunny Day2".

here i pulled the SSS shader tree off the eye and inner mouth groups and plugged just the image map back in. No other changes to lighting or render settings.

Almost pregnant is NOT pregnant.

Allmost a hit, is NO Hit. => Score is still 0-0

"Damm" that was close => No it was a miss. => Score is still 0-0

I allmost got it right. Meaning ; I got it wrong.

I allmost passed. Meaning : I failed.

It is allmost light : => No it is still dark.

Ha-ha-, I allmost crashed, => I am still alive to fly another day.

BB, you'v got a site mail :-)

As far as I can Judge, "THIS" partiucular bug IS the same Pré and Post Poser SR1. Versions : 16510 and 18621.

Off topic: Here's another interesting statistical story.

Do you know why known, accurate tests for deadly but untreatable diseases are intentionally not used?

Consider a hypothetical disease, Baggins Syndrome, which is so rare it only afflicts 10 out of a million people. With a US population of roughly 300 million people, there are 3,000 individuals in the US who absolutely are going to die early from Baggins Syndrome.

And, it's a no-warning killer - people just fall over dead a few days after symptoms appear, with no time to get their affairs in order. So, knowing if you have it would be rather helpful.

Let's suppose, as well, that the test is 99.9% accurate. In other words, for every 1000 people tested, only one gets the wrong answer.

What would happen if the government or the health care industry mandated that this test is applied to every person?

Of the 3,000 people who are, indeed, going to die from BS, 2,997 will be notified and they can set their affairs in order. Three people will still be surprised and die without warning, because the test failed to identify them as having Baggins Syndrome. That sounds good, right?

Of the remaining 299,997,000 people who do not have BS, the test will erroneously inform 299,997 people that they have the disease, when in actuality they do not. Roughly 300K people will be sent through the nightmare of thinking they are going to die from BS, when the truth is they are not sick at all.

That is why the test is not used.

Startling?

By the way, the same setup is why people ignore car theft alarms, rendering them useless. The false positive rate is high enough to make people think it's a mistake in all cases. Nobody calls the police, ever.

I'll have to give it a try. Thanks Robyn

Quote - > Quote - It would be great! I'm not sure how bad the mat situation would be- I see a lot of Luxrender scenes that look great! I've not tried it myself

 

Quote - > Quote -

Hi Eric... the materials for a Poser scene have to be re-assigned for LuxRender ... like done in Pose2Lux. At this point, anything involving much more than an imageMap has to be redone for Lux. Pose2Lux makes this process reasonably straightforward.

Quote - By the way, the same setup is why people ignore car theft alarms, rendering them useless. The false positive rate is high enough to make people think it's a mistake in all cases. Nobody calls the police, ever.

Well, you can be cited if you call the police too often.  Speaking of which, I heard an alarm in my neighborhood earlier but I figured the owner messed something up so I ignored it and carried on.

Quote - Bill are you saying these are different results than you would have expected to see pre SR1

I know the occluded surface scatter problem existed before SR1, but did SR1 make it worse?

That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that:

1. People have said this is new to SR1. I saw occlusion artifacts before. I saw them before the initial release. I saw them in Beta. Whether or not they are behaving the same as four months ago is immaterial. The artifact exists and I can demonstrate it with ease. I can get rid of it with ease as well - by reducing scatter distance.

2. People have said the interior geometry will cause the artifact only if it has scatter on it. Regardless of what I saw in the past, I see the artifact without qualification of having scatter on the inside or not. It isn't just because you used scatter on the eyeballs. Do whatever you like with the eyeball shader, the artifact will be there.

Another thing I'm saying - artifact, not bug.

I don't think it's a bug. This tactic for scatter is not an actual physics simulation. It's not an "unbiased" technique. It's biased.

That means it has flaws. The "dipole" model that was used is not going to agree with reality in all situations.

[blue pulled out, click for full]

while in no way is the following comment intended to detract, replace, chide, snigger, whine or detract from the ongoing advanced math under the hood analysis of the BlueEffect issues of the great poser biased SSS engine, still I must say it. Two words:

Post production.

::::: Opera :::::

Quote - ...For example: did you know that half of all doctors are below average in medical competence? Yep. By definition.

Only half?

Quote - ... I'm saying that:

1. People have said this is new to SR1. I saw occlusion artifacts before. I saw them before the initial release. I saw them in Beta. Whether or not they are behaving the same as four months ago is immaterial. The artifact exists and I can demonstrate it with ease. I can get rid of it with ease as well - by reducing scatter distance.

2. People have said the interior geometry will cause the artifact only if it has scatter on it. Regardless of what I saw in the past, I see the artifact without qualification of having scatter on the inside or not. It isn't just because you used scatter on the eyeballs. Do whatever you like with the eyeball shader, the artifact will be there.

Which explains the persistent cast around the lips:

Still there. Scatter from internal structures shaders removed.

I have tested and found the same or similar artifact in Blender.

Blender SSS is from the same paper as was used in P9/PP2012.

Quote - while in no way is the following comment intended to detract, replace, chide, snigger, whine or detract from the ongoing advanced math under the hood analysis ...

What math are you talking about? Did somebody else post some math I missed? I didn't post any math.

I think I have found a simple technique to eliminate the blue artifact.

What's it worth to you? grin

::::: uploading propitiating elixir of your choice :::::

Quote - I think I have found a simple technique to eliminate the blue artifact.

What's it worth to you? grin

I'll have your children?

Over for dinner, I mean... :biggrin:

Remember, low scale is more translucent, but introduces higher chances for the blue occlusion artifact, while high scale eliminates the artifact but loses that soft skin look.

So.

Here is Miki3 with EZSkin-applied shader at Scale = .9. The artifact is easy to see.

Thoughts? Good enough?

Be sure to load both images in separate windows and do a flip-comparison.

Thoughts? Good enough?

Yep. No more 5 PM shadow

For those who use VSS or matmatic, this will be easy. For others, not so much.

If you've already got a high scale (1.5+) here, this exercise is not necessary. But if you're trying to use a scale of 1 or less, this will help.

You will need to edit every skin zone. As follows:

Find the Scatter node doing the real work. In my screen shot, it's the one with a red box. The red arrow indicates the original connection - where the Scatter was plugged in.

You must add three nodes.

Duplicate your Scatter. Be careful to reproduce its input connections. In my screen shot, this is Scatter_2. Change the scale to a high value - I used 2. (yellow box)

Add an HSV node. Run the Scatter_2 into that. Set the HSV Value to .9 or near that.  (yellow box) (This is probably going to be something you need to tweak.)

Add a Color_Math:Max node. Connect the new HSV+Scatter2 and the original Scatter to this node. Then connect the Max node to where the original Scatter goes.

If the original Scatter goes to many places, reconnect the Max node to all of those.

In my demo, I forgot to do it on the lips, too. It matters.

That's kinda cool. You saved the good and capped or negated the bad it seems.

Quote - If you've already got a high scale (1.5+) here, this exercise is not necessary. But if you're trying to use a scale of 1 or less, this will help.

Just one stupid question, we know it's necessary to use a 1.5+ value for the scatter, what is the finality of this tweak ? Triying 1 or less is totally unusual for the skin.

Quote - Remember, low scale is more translucent, but introduces higher chances for the blue occlusion artifact, while high scale eliminates the artifact but loses that soft skin look.

I have my answer ;)

If you are doing the skin of a baby/young child, it really is very translucent and you will want to use a lower scale. For artistic reasons, there are many who like to see a child's skin on an adult woman - I think that is why people like the Dublin character, who is supposed to be a fair-skinned Irishwoman.

Or maybe you want a white elf. Remember, this community does fantasy, too, not just realism.

When I get home tonight, gonna have a go on Mariko. This is brilliant. And no, I wouldn't have come up with that in a month of Sundays. I was preparing to bark up the sss-map tree... iow, kludge.

Thanks, BB...

Attached Link: EZSkin v1.6.0

A checkbox allows you to choose whether or not to generate the extra nodes, and a couple of sliders allow you to configure the main parameters. These are all found on the 'Advanced options' tab.

As with all other settings, these new controls are included in the 'Save' and 'Load' menu options.

@BB: I've respected your choice of name for these nodes :-)