Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1822731

Just posted some more stuff for you to rip apart, ...have fun. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1822731

Message edited on: 08/05/2004 14:32

Just a taste of things to come ;-)

OK, here's a render using SKIN-BASE (skin-over-blood simulation). SKIN-BASE is an advanced material which is a method in itself. Because each is a seperate method, I've had to make refinements in order to get SKIN-BASE to INTERGRATE correctly with PRO-RENDER-XTREME. Luckily, it worked! Having the effect of SKIN-BASE inside a PRX render is really quite a big deal, honest it is!

Normally, a figure's skin colour is defined by using a texture map. This gives you control over the colour of the skin, but what it does NOT do, is give you a virtual simulation of skin/environment interaction. The best way to describe the difference between a texture map and SKIN-BASE would be: LIFELESS and LIFE!

So, if texture maps are not to be used to define skin colour, what is?

Well, you will have four major virtual parameters to do this:

1: SKIN COLOUR
2: BLOOD COLOUR
3: SKIN THICKNESS
4: BLOOD THICKNESS

...I did say that this is SKIN-OVER-BLOOD simulation ;-)

So, what about things like tattoos, lip colour and makeup?

These can be done with combination maps. These maps however, will look quite different to what you would have to produce for a standard map. Guidelines of how to create such maps will be given in the SKIN-BASE user manual (they're no harder than standard maps, just different).

Also, combination maps can be used to define wrinkles and blemishes etc, and the result is that SKIN-BASE will, by it's very nature, automatically generate the colouring effect of tight, loose, smooth, and creased skin. In short, you supply the detail, and SKIN-BASE will do the rest! There will no longer be any need to PAINT this effect onto texture maps!

Skin thickness can be controlled by a texture map. This is just as well really, because in real life, skin thickness varies greatly from head to toe. For example, compare the VERY thin skin of your lips, to the thikness of the skin on the bottom of your feet. Whether you just want to capture that GLOW you get when skin is backlit, or you want eyelids and lips that look ALIVE, it's possible using SKIN-BASE. It doesn't matter what you want from the skin, you ought to be able to simulate it with SKIN-BASE and a bit of practice.

Please know that the above image demonstrates SKIN-BASE without using any maps whatsoever, and as such, it's not a demonstration of SKIN-BASE's true potential. The skin you see above is a demonstration of SKIN-BASE in a VERY basic state.

There will be many -skin type- presets included in the package. For example, the skin type above shows what will eventually become the base pigmentation for a redhead. Imagine some long curly locks of ginger hair draping over that body, and you'll understand what I'm getting at regarding skin types and pigmentation. A redhead usually has thinner skin than say a brunette, and this is why her body looks pinkish, her skin is quite thin, so the underlying effect of blood is more visible.

I hope you like what you see.

Len.

Message edited on: 08/05/2004 14:25

Ah, I knew it!

I had a feeling that there would almost certainly be some talk of the nipples ;-)

God, you can't get away with anything in this place. OK, they're a bit pointy I must admit, but maybe PJF was right, maybe she's in a cool environment!

Nah, the truth of the matter is that they're intentionally large and pointed, I intended to tone 'em down a bit before I rendered, but I forgot. I was'nt going to go through a long render again, just to reduce the size of the nipples.

Just in case you're wondering why they look like that:

I always use that same mesh, when I'm testing SKIN-BASE. And believe it or not, the nipple area is a very good part of the mesh to examine SKIN-BASE up-close in a technical manner. It's because that part of the mesh is dense, and concentrates light evenly in the centre of a large smooth surrounding. Of course, now you're wondering what the hell I'm going on about, but rest assured, when you see the leap of progress I made last night with SKIN-BASE, you'll know EXACTLY what I mean.

Last night, I managed to get VERY close to what I want out of SKIN-BASE. I'm talking SKIN-OVER-BLOOD simulation in a single material!

The INCOMPLETE SKIN-BASE material shown above, is in comparison, very sub-standard to what I have now. I never should have posted a SKIN-BASE demonstration in that basic state, so I would suggest to anyone "ignore it".

The above images were supposed to be my final ones before I release PRO-RENDER, but, I'll do one more to show what SKIN-BASE was intended to do, (SKIN-OVER-BLOOD simulation).

I've NEVER been so plased with anything I've ever created, than what I came up with last night. If you're intending to use figures in PRO-RENDER-EXTREME, then you're gonna love what I've done. If people are not impressed with my next image, then as far as I'm concerned, there's no pleasing them, and I couldn't care less of their opinion.
We shall see...

No matter what, I AM EXTATIC!!! 8-))

I'll get a render done in the next couple of days!

Len.

PJF, Of course it's a low temperature environment, not too sure about your processor staying so cool though, when you're using it ;-) OTHERS, Please be sure to look far enough BACK into the thread if you visit it, because quite a few images where posted. Len.

PR/PRX specifications chart:

A light distribution comparison for PR (image 1) and PRX (image 2). Len.

Same image, only this time with NO LIGHTS. Len.

OK, here's another comparison, and this time it's dedicated to everyone who's trying to crack PRO-RENDER. It's a scene with only ONE light (the sun). The wall material is a preset that came with Bryce 5, but which has been modified to PRO-RENDER spec. Please note inparticular, the marble pattern directly above the screen (ignore where the pattern is lost completely in the reflection), look just to the right of this, and ask yourself why the pattern itself is more detailed in the PRO-RENDER version, even though, the pattern was NOT changed between renders! If you really DO enjoy the challenge, here's the biggest clue: -IT'S ALL IN THE BALANCE- Have fun :-)) Len.

As requested, here are my earlier renders shown as with/without PRO-RENDER comparisons. Len.

Well, as many of us know, imported geometry under true ambience has smoothing problems. In fact, smoothing the object in Bryce 5 will have no effect on it's smoothness under TA whatsoever. However, there are ways to work around this problem, and this image demonstrates the PR and PRX methods of doing so.

Take a look a both, they're both smooth, and they're both rendered with NO LIGHTS! The image on the left was rendered using the PR method, and the image on the right was rendered using the PRX method and SKIN-BASE (PRX package (see specifications chart)).

SKIN-BASE along with another product called HAIR-BASE (not shown), are special advanced materials designed for specific emulation of different skin/hair types. Technically, these materials are a method in their own right, and are designed to integrate perfectly into the PRX method. They're pretty complicated, and require a manual of their own. SKIN-BASE and HAIR-BASE are still under development. Please know that image 2 demonstrates SKIN-BASE in an INCOMPLETE state, and is included here for comparison purposes only.

SKIN-BASE and HAIR-BASE were originally intended to be distributed as seperate products. However, the importance of skin and hair in Bryce 5, has taken on an all new level since the DAZ/Bryce 5 ownership. SKIN-BASE and HAIR-BASE will now be available as part of the PRX package (see specifications chart).

Len.

Message edited on: 08/02/2004 15:09

This image is to show that the light leak problem has been sorted. The cube primitive in image 1 is a Bryce 5 PARAMETRIC, and obviously has problems. The cube primitive in image 2 is a GEOMETRIC (imported geometry) replacement, and solves the light leak problem. PRO-RENDER will come with any replacement primitives needed. After sorting the light leak problem, I kind of assumed that using replacement primitives would also solve the boolean problem. Unfortunately though, booleans still don't work properly. This won't be a problem to anyone who imports objects though. Len.

There's an myth with Bryce 5, regarding reflections on transparent materials that have no reflective property set. This is something that members see as a problem caused by the use of TA (True Ambience). However, the reality is that it's not actually a problem, and it's presence is not caused by TA. The cause is actually refraction, as my test strip above demonstrates. OK, two rows of images, the top row is PRO-RENDER using True Ambience, and the bottom row is standard Bryce 5 (No TA). Also, please note that EVERY image uses 0% reflection and 100% transparency. First, take a look at 3 and 6, a reflection is clearly present (Refraction = 153 (Glass)). Now look at 2 and 5, and you'll notice the reflection is starting to disappear (Refraction = 101 (Mild Refraction)). Finally look at 1 and 3, and you'll notice a complete absence of reflection (Refraction = 100 (Air/No Refraction)). So there you have it, some might find this rather strange, but in reality it makes perfect sense. Just imagine a real world situation, if you had a perfect sphere, totally transparent, no colouring to define it, no reflection of it's surroundings, and no refraction to define it's density, how on earth would you expect to see it? The fact is that you won't, as demonstrated by image 1. I hope this has clarified the myth, as well as give some food for thought regarding real-world-to-CG physics. ;-) Len.

drawbridgep, QUOTE: "I'm not trying to say that it's possible to produce pro-render results without pro-render, more that I was trying to see how close Bryce can come on it's own." Ah, but it IS possible to produce PRO-RENDER results without PRO-RENDER, it's simply a matter of understanding the method and it's settings, and PRO-RENDER will give you this ;-) Len.

Hey, enough of the typo's! I said PRX (PRO-RENDER-XTREME) not PRE (PRO-RENDER-EXTREME)! Yeh I know, get some sleep right? Going...Going...zzzZZZzzz