Quote - 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.

Izzi showed results and the nodes that made them. You give us words, no picture or screen shot of what you did. I think you probably made a mistake, such as not entering the .02 in the Specular node. You need to show what you did. There's no need to see the entire shader above, because the rest of it is just the standard VSS shader, doing a bunch of math that won't change the outcome with regard to bump. Nor will it fit on the screen.

Izzi did not set the PM:Bump dial = 1.0 - that would be bad. Is that what you're talking about?

In your texture set, did you have a bump map? The strength of that map is what the PM:Bump value adjusts. Izzi added more nodes to create some more bump for water droplets when there isn't a good enough bump map in the texture set.

Quote - > Quote - 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.

Izzi showed results and the nodes that made them. You give us words, no picture or screen shot of what you did. I think you probably made a mistake, such as not entering the .02 in the Specular node. You need to show what you did. There's no need to see the entire shader above, because the rest of it is just the standard VSS shader, doing a bunch of math that won't change the outcome with regard to bump. Nor will it fit on the screen.

Izzi did not set the PM:Bump dial = 1.0 - that would be bad. Is that what you're talking about?

In your texture set, did you have a bump map? The strength of that map is what the PM:Bump value adjusts. Izzi added more nodes to create some more bump for water droplets when there isn't a good enough bump map in the texture set.

I provided four screenshots yesterday plus the full image which was the last I uploaded.. it includes the four tests as well as a closeup of the face in test four.

Sorry peeps, I'm at work here and not able to do really important stuff!

@hborre:  the reason I plugged it directly into the Poser Surface was because I did not want to affect any of the 'normal' bump coming from the skin bump map. I only wanted to add something extra, independent of the normal skin bump, literally "on top" of the skin.

If I had plugged it into PM:Bump, then I would be changing a value that affects the normal skin bump as well.

To be more accurate, there should also be sweat beads where there is not so much specular reflection, which my nodes do not model. But I'm not sure how this would look to the eye, so I didn't bother with it. Maybe I'll go down the gym tonight, and have a close look at some sweaty bodies. Hey... it's called Research!

@matrix03: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to snap at you. As bb said, my material room picture shows the only changes I made to the VSS PR3 Template_Skin shader. PM:Bump is still at 0.03, I increased PM:Shine to 1.0. My nodes (as they are set up here) will add a maximum of 2 hundreths of an inch bump to the skin's own bump (you are using inches, aren't you?)

If you are getting too much bump by adding these nodes, then try turning down the Specular_Value in the new specular node. Your original pictures showed a lot of specular reflection (much more than my model's skin), so you may well need to turn it down a bit, or a lot.

Happy rendering! Now I must get back to this boring work stuff....

looks to me like by default it's 0.083333

I just loaded baggins  VSS_P3 and took a screenshot:

have not made any adjustments.

Quote -
@matrix03: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to snap at you. As bb said, my material room picture shows the only changes I made to the VSS PR3 Template_Skin shader. PM:Bump is still at 0.03, I increased PM:Shine to 1.0. My nodes (as they are set up here) will add a maximum of 2 hundreths of an inch bump to the skin's own bump (you are using inches, aren't you?)

no problem. just don't let it happen again! :P

anyway, guys I just checked both versions of baggins VSS_PR3 props, both the AO and non AO version  by default have the bump set at "0.083333"

see my screenshot above.

Okay, the different values are because you are using feet as your units of measurement. I did ask you about that in my last post... you quoted it!

If you're following any of bb's guidance then you need to be using inches, or converting the relevant settings as you go along. But it's much easier to just switch to inches.

Izzy, thanks for the response.  I suspected as such in regards to your answer.  If I find some time, I'll play around with these settings in my own VSS version.  Thanks again.

Quote - Okay, the different values are because you are using feet as your units of measurement. I did ask you about that in my last post... you quoted it!

If you're following any of bb's guidance then you need to be using inches, or converting the relevant settings as you go along. But it's much easier to just switch to inches.

don't get testy mate. I'll check it out in a bit ok?

Nobody's getting testy. Relax. Sometimes it is necessary to reiterate information that has already been provided, because the reader has missed the significance of it. In this case, the information was that Poser displays these numbers differently depending on what you've chosen for your Poser display units.

We all see 1.0 because we are displaying it in inches. You see .083333 because you are displaying it in feet. .083333 feet is 1 inch. You need to be using inches or converting the settings.

ok guys I ran four tests using the three addittional nodes.(math functions, specular, and noise)

same skin texture and light setup as yesterday

my problem is by adding these three nodes it has given the skin a rough exterior in the shiny areas. if I reduce the second math output it starts to resemble white lines like yesterdays test.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1881474

Many people are happy enough with the rough approximation to wet skin produced by the noise node. As you found, decreasing the amplitude (max = .5)  or one of the other multipliers it leads to will decrease the roughness. But if you go too low, you end up with featureless flat speculars again, resulting in a plastic finish.

If you're trying to get a more realistic natural pattern of droplets, you are in for some work. I have been figuring out how to do this off and on for 2 years, and I'm not yet able to produce convincing photo-real water droplets on skin. Nobody has yet produced anything that is 100% procedural and at the same time 100% convincing.

dburdick has a product for Vue called SkinVue, and it involves putting photographed droplets on top of the skin texture. I'm not a fan of that, as far as techniques go, but it is convincing, until you get really close, or try to render two figures at once. When you get close, the fact that the droplets are actually flat is revealed, and if you render two figures, the fact that the pattern of droplets is identical on them gives it away.

You might try using something other than the Noise node. I found that the Fractal_Sum node has promise, but it is still too uniform. To get the runny look of real droplets sliding down skin, I think you'd need more like 15 to 20 nodes and a lot of math. As I said, I've still not succeeded with such a thing.

This is about the best I've come up with - still not there.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=3182648&ebot_calc_page#message_3182648

anyway here are two more tests which I conducted.

I'm limited to one upload per day and I would've uploaded here but it probably wouldn't take

so here is test #5 and #6

CLICK TO VIEW LARGE

There are three numbers you're manipulating there over your various tests, but they're all doing the same thing.

The Noise produces a value from 0 to max (.8 in your last one)
The Specular multiplies that with another number (.02).
Then the Add node is multiplying that with another number (.4 in your last one.)

There's no point in trying numbers in different combinations - no matter which one you change in that node setup, it's doing the same thing - changing the overall maximum value.

So .8 * .02 * .4 = .0064 <--- that is your effective maximum.

You can change that to 1 * .02 * .32 and you get the exact same results = .0064
You can change that to .5 * .02 * .64 and you get the exact same results. = .0064

Quote - There are three numbers you're manipulating there over your various tests, but they're all doing the same thing.

The Noise produces a value from 0 to max (.8 in your last one)
The Specular multiplies that with another number (.02).
Then the Add node is multiplying that with another number (.4 in your last one.)

There's no point in trying numbers in different combinations - no matter which one you change in that node setup, it's doing the same thing - changing the overall maximum value.

So .8 * .02 * .4 = .0064 <--- that is your effective maximum.

You can change that to 1 * .02 * .32 and you get the exact same results = .0064
You can change that to .5 * .02 * .64 and you get the exact same results. = .0064

now you tell me.

so what would you suggest then?  

Looks like test 5 and 6 come very close.  Keep in mind, perspiration is going to add some shininess to the skin especially when it combines with body oils under the presence of bright lights.  If the 'white' lines are that distracting, change the angle of your light source or decrease the intensity.

Quote - Looks like test 5 and 6 come very close.  Keep in mind, perspiration is going to add some shininess to the skin especially when it combines with body oils under the presence of bright lights.  If the 'white' lines are that distracting, change the angle of your light source or decrease the intensity.

I think I might've saved the same image twice.
anyway take a look at #7. it seems no matter what I do it either tends to look rough or plastic looking.

Yep, I agree.  I would go with the previous render.  It is more believable.

Quote - Here's another one I tried. 105 nodes. Discussion at the linked thread.

getting back to this. I'm not going for a super drenched sweaty look, but more something that you would expect a musician to have while playing on stage,in a club, not outside in an open stadium in the middle of summer. this would work for the stadium probably.

Page 47 of this thread contains all the settings BB gave for regular sweat.  I've used them many times and they look fine.  They worked well enough for my attached shower scene.

I give you my latest sweaty skin ball. (Also the name of my next rock band)

My previous "next rock band name" was "sagging skin ball."

Quote -
My previous "next rock band name" was "sagging skin ball."

Didn't they tour with the Dead decades ago? ;-)

Quote - > Quote - ...I'm not going for a super drenched sweaty look, but more something that you would expect a musician to have while playing on stage,in a club, not outside in an open stadium in the middle of summer. this would work for the stadium probably.

Page 47 of this thread contains all the settings BB gave for regular sweat.  I've used them many times and they look fine.  They worked well enough for my attached shower scene.

yeah, I did that one yesterday
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2737823&page=47

Quote - Here it is with PM:Shine = 2 and I also increase PM:Shine Spread = 2.

Is this the look you wanted? This is wet. If you want oiled, we have to switch to a Glossy node.

I'm gonna try this out again and see what happens. I know I used 1, but don't think I used 2

will post results here in a little  while

matrix03 - bear in mind that changing those PM parameters will change the visible specular reflections in your image. It should not change the new bump at all, since we are not using those PM parameters to control it. To be honest, I think you already have masses of 'shine' in your image. You could try increasing the spread, though.

Yeah the settings are pretty good. Matrix's problem is his texture set doesn't have a bump map that brings out the droplet effect. We're trying to come up with an additional procedural bump to add to those settings so that even if the figure is otherwise perfectly smooth, it won't look that way.

My newest skin droplets shown above uses a Fractal_Sum node to generate those tiny droplets, which pick up multiple specular highlights. Without the additional bump, it looks like this.

reduced shine level

This is PR3, but with some interesting adjustments to try and workaround the GC terminator transition issue. One spotlight (no IBL). Image on the left is straight out of Poser. On the right...well, I still couldn't resist 20% Auto-Levels in Photoshop.

You could try just decreasing the Gamma in the skin shader a bit. Try 2 instead of 2.2. That will soften the terminator.

I use a Diffuse node to measure overall illumination. I run that into a SmoothStep (using a 5x multiplier). That means any illumination from 0 to 20% will be smoothed.

Run that into a Blender. I set the Blender Input_1 to a value darker than white. Input_2 is white.

This is your new Diffuse_Value to plug into whatever your'e already using for Diffuse. In my shader, there's a Diffuse node somewhere you'd hook this to. It probably already has something plugged into Diffuse_Value. Whatever that is, plug that into both inputs of the Blender, then connect the Blender to the Diffuse_Value.

You can adjust the intensity of the softening effect by how bright the gray value is in Value_1 of the Blender.

The Sphere on the left doesn't have the circuit. The one on the right does.

Rendered with Poser Pro GC. You'd get the same effect in Poser 7 with my shader, but the gray level will act differently.

Quote - Late to the party as usual - finally started digging into VSS skin in earnest.

This is PR3, but with some interesting adjustments to try and workaround the GC terminator transition issue. One spotlight (no IBL). Image on the left is straight out of Poser. On the right...well, I still couldn't resist 20% Auto-Levels in Photoshop.

the eyes look amazing. is this the shader from Bagginbill's ''Unbelievably Complicated Figure Shader for Apollo Maximus'' ?

you carodan you really are an artist. you always make poses that have emotions.

Quote - the eyes look amazing. is this the shader from Bagginbill's ''Unbelievably Complicated Figure Shader for Apollo Maximus'' ?

you carodan you really are an artist. you always make poses that have emotions.

The eyes are indeed from the UCFS for Apollo - lucky that they just worked for this test. The reflection is wrong really but I needed something quick to work with the skin. Need to work on something more accurate at some point.

bb - for my test I actually plugged something not wholly dissimilar (but by far less elegant and mathmatically incorrect) directly into the Gamma Correction control node (in the PR3 setup). I know this wasn't the best thing to do and probably won't work well with brighter lighting conditions. When I just tried a test with the nodes you posted above I still got a very abrupt terminator by plugging them into the diffuse as you suggested. It looked much better when plugged directly into the GC control (to my eyes at least). I may not have put the nodes in the right place though.

btw bb, I just want to say how much I'm enjoying the PR3 shaders - so easy to play with and the results are stunning. I think you've raised the bar on the Poser material room very significantly - I love your scientific approach (even if I don't always understand the math). Respect.

how did you get the red on the edges? did you change the specular?

Oh, if you mean the red on the right edges of the figures in the shadows, I had a very very low level lBL with a map to throw light in from the right and rear. I think the changes I made to the skin shader dealt with the actual redness.

Quote - Ok, I think this only really works for lighting like that I used in this example. The nodes bb posted to soften the terminator I plugged into the GC and left it at 2.2. But I used an orange colour instead of the grey in the top blender input. I gave the skin colour a slight tint and then plugged this also into the blender. This increases the redness at the line of the terminator which bleeds into the skin.
I haven't tested this in lighter settings but I'd guess it might not work so well.

thats a good tip

I think this is what bb intended... plugging them in to the existing Diffuse node, which is way over on the right, just beyond the Specular map.

But if you really intended to do it that way, please just ignore me, I won't mind! :O)

Actually what Dan did is sound. Decreasing gamma correction would also darken shadows - as we know  that's the point, right? So doing so near the terminator makes sense and does the same as decreasing the effective luminance of the Diffuse node as I suggested. The curves come out slightly different, but we're talking subjective stuff here so there's no physics to be tracked. And also using the Tint does similar stuff - reducing the effective diffuse reflectivity, but independent control of each RGB channel. Doing both - not strictly logical, but it gets you there.

I didn't realize you wanted to also redden the terminator - my setup was only going to soften it. However, if you wanted to take advantage of the built-in relationship between diffuse reflectivity and sss reflectivity, you could get a softer and redder terminator with only two nodes. Unhook that Blender, and just connect the Math:SmoothStep to PM:Diffuse Reflectivity. Observe the change in the preview.

Here's the logic - a photon approaches a skin. It strikes the air-skin boundary - does it reflect (specularly) here? A percentage will (controlled by Shine parameters). Those that don't, they enter the skin. So a photon has avoided specular reflection and now it is in the skin/pigment layer. Does it enter a molecule and then reflect (diffusely) here? A percent will (controlled by PM:Diffuse Reflectivity). Those that don't, they enter the deep tissue, and experience sub-surface scattering. Of those, a certain percentage will come back out (PM:SSS).

So the moral is:

More shine = less diffuse + sss
Less shine = more diffuse + sss
More diffuse = less sss
Less diffuse = more sss

Nobody in Poser land has modeled a skin shader this way before, as far as I know.

BB this softening is something i was thinking about weeks ago. this could better simulate fake SSS.

Quote - Actually what Dan did is sound.

Okay, but why would you want to vary the anti-gamma of incoming image maps based on the same logic? Is that sound?

Quote - This little circuit can be used to soften a terminator.

I use a Diffuse node to measure overall illumination. I run that into a SmoothStep (using a 5x multiplier). That means any illumination from 0 to 20% will be smoothed.

Run that into a Blender. I set the Blender Input_1 to a value darker than white. Input_2 is white.

This is your new Diffuse_Value to plug into whatever your'e already using for Diffuse. In my shader, there's a Diffuse node somewhere you'd hook this to. It probably already has something plugged into Diffuse_Value. Whatever that is, plug that into both inputs of the Blender, then connect the Blender to the Diffuse_Value.

You can adjust the intensity of the softening effect by how bright the gray value is in Value_1 of the Blender.

The Sphere on the left doesn't have the circuit. The one on the right does.

Rendered with Poser Pro GC. You'd get the same effect in Poser 7 with my shader, but the gray level will act differently.

i tryed those nodes now. doesnt work good when we are using an IBL. 

In the animated gif above (slightly lost a little of the smoothness in the terminator, but it still tells a story):

1. bb's terminator softening nodes as plugged into the diffuse as originally suggested.
2. same nodes minus the blender and now plugged into the Diffuse Reflectivity control adding redness.
3. the terminator softeners plugged into the GC control and Tint control (as I had them in my first render)

I find the terminator line too sharp still in 1, but 2 and 3 are a lot nicer.
Notice how the terminator line creeps across as the sequence progresses. I like 2 as a happy medium overall, although I liked the slightly deeper redness of my first attempt.