bagginsbill

remember before we started to use gamma correction how sometimes the materials looked like they are ''glowing'' or like they are blowing up by light.
i want to make a stylized skin shader that has some of that look. but i still want it to be GC. i was thinking that it gets a little brighter .but not like specular. and maybe more saturated to give it more color.

have any tips? 

thanks.

Gets brighter where? I don't really understand what you mean. Are you talking about the yellow bloom effect?

Quote - Gets brighter where? I don't really understand what you mean. Are you talking about the yellow bloom effect?

well i didnt want to mention PIXAR movies because they use SSS. but something like that.
sometimes on the skin there is a yellow glow. i guess its from the SSS.
i was asking myself if we could fake this somehow with the some shader tricks?
it would be for stylized cartoony renders.

[

www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Ratatouille/ratatouille_movie_image_pixar__3_.jpg](http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Ratatouille/ratatouille_movie_image_pixar__3_.jpg)
i30.tinypic.com/aynl3d.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/_gu5F7Pn2YLw/SHgWl9VGXoI/AAAAAAAAAO0/CQgYft4PcQ4/s400/incredibles.jpg
albums.mouseplanet.com/MPPromotional/ratatouille2.jpg

examples

examples
www.movietrailertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/russell_600.jpg
www.iconocast.com/B000000000000114/O0/News9_0.jpg

Yes those are all beautiful examples of cartoon characters made to look like they obey the laws of physics with respect to light and materials. Very nice stuff. I know exactly how to do that. But I cannot do it with Poser in a general way. I can make specific custom shaders for specific camera angles and specific known lights that look like that. But the general solution escapes me given the tools we have in the current Poser material room.

sometimes they look like the yellow bloom effect but with GC he he.

i was thinking maybe using a specular to control the colors? and then saturate the colors on  top of that?  so that it would work with every light.

First, I've spent most of the afternoon seeking something in this thread (and others) and not finding it. What I'm looking for is bagginsbill's recommended corrections to his VSS eye shaders. I have been experimenting, but I just can't get it right, and I'm at my wits' end.

Second, what is causing the light line under her breasts? And how do I fix it in the render?

Thanks for any help!

What I remember, but correct me if I'm not right: someone suggested, not BB, to set the difuse-node of eyewhite to 2 and the difuse-node of iris to 1, I tried that and it gave much better results, what I also did, but perhaps that's a question of personal tasts, I lowered the highlight size of the cornea from 0.01 to 0.005.

best regards,

Bopper.

Thanks Bopper, I'll try those settings in my next render.

Quote - What I remember, but correct me if I'm not right: someone suggested, not BB, to set the difuse-node of eyewhite to 2 and the difuse-node of iris to 1, I tried that and it gave much better results, what I also did, but perhaps that's a question of personal tasts, I lowered the highlight size of the cornea from 0.01 to 0.005.

best regards,

Bopper.

like BB said., in reality nothing is 100% bright. 0,8 is a good number. diffuse 1 is 100% the texture. if you set it to 2 it would be superbright. to bright IMO.

The VSS eye-white template has a default diffuse value of 0.9, and it's clear from my first pic that this is nowhere near high enough. Increasing it to 1.8 gives a huge improvement.

The VSS iris template default diffuse value is 0.5, and increasing this to 0.9 works fine here, I think.

like BB said., in reality nothing is 100% bright. 0,8 is a good number. diffuse 1 is 100% the texture. if you set it to 2 it would be superbright. to bright IMO.

That would be correct if the shader was working correct, but if I'm not mistaken BB agreed that some work had to be done on the eye shaders, because the default poser A0-node darkened the eyes too much. You're talking about reality but in fact a shader is a approach to create reality. Sometimes nodes in shaders need values that go beyond what is supposed to be reality. You have to play with the settings to get a "realistic" result, and now and then you have to break some rules. What only counts is the result of the rendered image and you need your eye to judge if it's realistic or not.
When I set up a scene I start with some default settings: on the shaders, the lights (IBL, fill-lights, rimlights etc) and make a testrender, and then I start to tweak everything: a little more IBL, a little more shine-spread, a little less diffuse etc. etc and I don't care if the nodes are not set as they are supposed to be, and I make literaly dozens of renders untill I'm satisfied.
This doesn't mean that I'm very impressed about Baggingsbill VSS and it's shaders and his huge knowledge about poser's material room, I have used VSS from the very beginning and I use it in every render since.
But there is more than VSS to make a good and realistic render, if you have a lousy skintexture or eyetexture you will have to tweak the VSS-shaders in all kinds of way to get a satisfying result. And the same counts for IBL-images. And of course there is firefly, which doesn't always behave as we expect.
VSS is a cookbook with a lot of good recipes, but sometimes you have to change some or add some for your personal taste, and if you don't have the good ingredients the results won't be what you expected.

best regards,

Bopper.

going over 1 is IMO wrong. if AO is to much then you connect a blender node and use only 60 or 50% AO.

I understand why you would think that. 

But going over 1 is only "wrong" when a value of 1 means that the surface reflects 100% of any light falling on it.

In this shader this value has no such meaning.

There is lots of other maths in this shader, and the value I am adjusting is just one of several factors. Setting it to more than 1 does not introduce incorrect physics, and more to the point it looks much more realistic.

i dont think there is any  math in the shader that would make it darker. its a GC shader . BB did fake SSS with the specular. but this is just a little extra color.it doesnt make it a lot darker. maybe the problem is the texture.

The diffuse value in the eye-white shader (and other shaders) is meant to reduce the strength of AO in the shader, because that doesn't work on materials, as BB has mentioned before, only on lights, how higher the value, how lesser the strength of the Ao -node.

best regards,
Bopper.

Quote - The diffuse value in the eye-white shader (and other shaders) is meant to reduce the strength of AO in the shader, because that doesn't work on materials, as BB has mentioned before, only on lights, how higher the value, how lesser the strength of the Ao -node.

best regards,
Bopper.

the diffuse was low because BB used brighter lights.  because the skin shader was more darker. so the eyewhite shader was darker

and we found a solution to make it work on materials
www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php

ran some tests today

my question is this how do I make the white line become less apparent on the right arm?

btw, I'm using your two light setup, the IBL and infininte which you suggested the other day .

you can view the entire thing here with a closeup of the face
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1880967&member

Ok guys I took notes in case anyone wants to suggest lowering any of the settings

ok, I took notes on this

the quote in blue is baggins from his previous  post:

"Get the PR3 shader. Look for the parameter nodes in the Template Skin. Do you see PM:Shine? Raise that to 1.

Here's what it looks like on M4. I increase the PM:Bump to .5 because M4 bump maps are weak. If the shine on your figure looks too even, increase the PM:Bump."

PM SHINE 0.250000(DEFAULT)

NOTE: raising PM SHINE TO 1 is a bit high on Christina in test #1 so I will now

PM SHINE: 0.750000 for test #2

TEST #3

change PM SHINE TO 1.200000

and

PM SHINE SPREAD FROM 0.700000(default) to 0.5

TEST #4

change PM SHINE SPREAD FROM 0.5 to 0.75

PM SHINE 1.2

PM SHINE LEVEL FROM 1.0(default) to 0.750000

Christina is my character whom I used for these tests
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1880967

I used 1 IBL with no image and one infinite which Baskinsbill suggested the other night.

Here is a quick test (click to view full size) I did using a noise node (it might be better with a spots node, I didn't get that far). The sphere on the left has just specular, while the one on the right has an extra specular node applying noise to the bump channel. You will have to play around with the node values a bit to get it right.

I agree with IsaoShi, raising the PM Shine level will only give you more reflective specular.  In addition, I think your light settings are a little too bright.  What are your light settings for both the IBL and the infinite.  BTW, it's bagginsbill; we call him BB for short.

Quote - Responding to your IM, I think that increasing the PM Shine would make it look even more like plastic. I think what you need is not more shine, but more bump, to make it look like beads of sweat.

Here is a quick test (click to view full size) I did using a noise node (it might be better with a spots node, I didn't get that far). The sphere on the left has just specular, while the one on the right has an extra specular node applying noise to the bump channel. You will have to play around with the node values a bit to get it right.

can you provide a screenshot of your setup in the material room to illustrate this?

thanks

Quote - I agree with IsaoShi, raising the PM Shine level will only give you more reflective specular.  In addition, I think your light settings are a little too bright.  What are your light settings for both the IBL and the infinite.  BTW, it's bagginsbill; we call him BB for short.

they're not bright at all. I am using 1 infinite and 1 IBL set at 10%.

and I am going by bagginsbills suggestions so you'll have to take it up with him

Quote - BTW, it's bagginsbill; we call him BB for short.

Or the God of Nodes, Material God, or Best Poser Material Guy Ever...

I have to build that Poser shrine to BB one of these days... :)

10% for IBL is fine.  What about the infinite?

Quote - 10% for IBL is fine.  What about the infinite?

80%

these are tests guys

I'm gonna do a multiple light set up for a stage. I am just running tests right now.

Quote - Ooh yes, sorry, screenshot here...
The relevant nodes are the Specular and Noise. I also did a test render using the Spots node shown here, the results of which I'll post next.

ok are you using this in conjuction with Baggins system?

I don't see it in your screenshot

Quote - The diffuse value in the eye-white shader (and other shaders) is meant to reduce the strength of AO in the shader, because that doesn't work on materials, as BB has mentioned before, only on lights, how higher the value, how lesser the strength of the Ao -node.

best regards,
Bopper.

Aha! Thanks for that little snippet, bopper. Armed with that I'll take another look at the eyewhite shader. I did half notice a bit too much reduction in AO as I made the eye whites whiter, but I let it pass me by. Thanks.

IsaoShi the image is fine for all of us that understand it, but matrix needs to see how to adjust the settings in the VSSPR3 Prop.  I would track down BB's examples but I will be away from my PC for the next hour.

@ matrix03: I do use VSS; but I'm not using it here for this testing. You can plug this effect into the bump channel on your VSS prop Template_Skin, if you want to use it.

cross-post... It would be easy to do, but I really have to go to bed now (UK time, up at 7am).

what happens if you increase the bump setting from 0.03 to 0.05?
has anyone obtained optimal results by plaing with this node?
a setting of 0.1 is too rough as I just discovered.

Quote - @ matrix03: I do use VSS; but I'm not using it here for this testing. You can plug this effect into the bump channel on your VSS prop Template_Skin, if you want to use it.

cross-post... It would be easy to do, but I really have to go to bed now (UK time, up at 7am).

well, there's always tomorrow mate. ;-)

I'm been working on some of these characters for over two years and if you go back through my gallery you'll find that they've ocme a long way since. ;-)

Quote - what happens if you increase the bump setting from 0.03 to 0.05?
has anyone obtained optimal results by plaing with this node?
a setting of 0.1 is too rough as I just discovered.

There really is no optimal setting. It depends entirely on the contrast in your bump map; every one is different. Only experimentation using your bump map will find the best setting.

Nite!

Quote - Well, okay, just a quick test. It needs adjusting, but you get the idea. (Click for full size to see it better). Using VSS... material screenshot coming up..... 

lovely lady. all you need is to put a guitar in her hands. ;-)

Now I'm really going to the land of nod. Really.

That bit of information is going to cost you.  But thanks for divulging the little secret.

Quote - Three extra nodes on the VSS Template_Skin, just before the input to the Bump channel.
Quick and dirty.... don't anyone tell BB I did this to his shader!

Now I'm really going to the land of nod. Really.

the bump set at 1.0?

that's gonna make the skin look like rough sandpaper.

I would not recommend such a high setting for the bump.

Ah - my cult grows.

Matrix03 - As they've told you, the issue on your render was you need bump. As for the 1.0, that is not 1.0 it is 1.0 times what is plugged in.

Suppose you plug in a value that only changes by .0005 - then 1.0 * .0005 = .0005 inches, not very much.

SUppose you have a bump value set to .01, but what you plug in is 767 - then the bump would be .01 * 767 = 7.67 inches - that would be a serious bump.

So you see, the numerical value alone means nothing - it is a multiplier of whatever is plugged in. When what is plugged in is large, the multiplier must be small. But when what is plugged in is small (such as a very weak turbulence) then the multiplier can be large.

But I agree that given what we see plugged in above, which is Noise (0 to 1) times Specular (usually 0 to 1) that's a lot of bump. But if you look closely, the Specular Value is set to .02, which means it is not in the range 0 to 1. So the total bump from that branch of nodes is about .02 at most.

And.... the bump value in bb's original VSS shader is 1.0, I didn't change it. In fact I changed nothing in bb's shader, I just added something extra with a math node.

(Oh, that's a slight lie. I took out all the gamma/anti-gamma nodes, as I'm using Poser Pro. I didn't want the extra calculations that changed nothing).

In any case, I don't really understand "that's wrong, that's not going to work" when the evidence of it working (reasonably well for a quick test render) is right there in the image I posted. puzzled

Just a question, IsaoShi, I noticed that you plugged in directionly into the PoserSurface.  Would you get the same affect if you plugged into the PM:Bump instead?

Quote - Ah - my cult grows.

Matrix03 - As they've told you, the issue on your render was you need bump. As for the 1.0, that is not 1.0 it is 1.0 times what is plugged in.

Suppose you plug in a value that only changes by .0005 - then 1.0 * .0005 = .0005 inches, not very much.

SUppose you have a bump value set to .01, but what you plug in is 767 - then the bump would be .01 * 767 = 7.67 inches - that would be a serious bump.

So you see, the numerical value alone means nothing - it is a multiplier of whatever is plugged in. When what is plugged in is large, the multiplier must be small. But when what is plugged in is small (such as a very weak turbulence) then the multiplier can be large.

But I agree that given what we see plugged in above, which is Noise (0 to 1) times Specular (usually 0 to 1) that's a lot of bump. But if you look closely, the Specular Value is set to .02, which means it is not in the range 0 to 1. So the total bump from that branch of nodes is about .02 at most.

o.k, I want to see a screenshot of your entire material room setup which shows this because I dialed it into 1.0 and got skin that resembled rough sandpaper.

Quote - And.... the bump value in bb's original VSS shader is 1.0, I didn't change it. In fact I changed nothing in bb's shader, I just added something extra with a math node.

(Oh, that's a slight lie. I took out all the gamma/anti-gamma nodes, as I'm using Poser Pro. I didn't want the extra calculations that changed nothing).

In any case, I don't really understand "that's wrong, that's not going to work" when the evidence of it working (reasonably well for a quick test render) is right there in the image I posted. puzzled

you too mate! 

show me the screenshot of your entire setup including those nodes that you added so I can see what is plugged into what.