Normal Maps, I'm pretty sure I didn't Imagine it :) but I might be wrong.

John.

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Yes, although the current version for download won't let you. An update to enable this should be available "within the week" according to Bagginsbill.

My Freebies

Here:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2778338&page=8#message_3493957

My Freebies

We plan on having a small hotfix available perhaps as early as today that will enable Normal Mapping. I'll post a new thread once this goes live.

Steve Cooper

That will be wonderful, thank you for the update.

My Freebies

Cheers people :) Thats brilliant cant wait to have a go at creating some in 3D Coat and seeing how poser handles it.

John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Good. The majority of my newer figures have normal maps but mostly DS3 users have been making use of them since they outnumbered the PoserPro folks, or at least it seems like it from our end. -Les

I'm starting to create and use normal maps in PoserPro itself.

Okay I don't want to sound like a newbie but what are "normal maps"?

Poserverse The New Home for NYGUY's Freebies

Quick, dirty explanation: a bump map basically increases or decreases an amount of brightness based on the greyscale value of the map. This if fine if something is only viewed from one perspective and the bump is generated with that in mind, but it can be problematic when something starts to move because the differences the bump should be representing in the surface don't actually change with the lighting. Part of the problem is that bump is inherently a 2 channel thing: greyscale. Even if a color map gets shoved in a bump channel, it's still calculated based on brightness. With normal maps, each channel of an RGB image defines how light interacts with the surface of the mesh based on either vertex or polygon normals, so where bump might give some intial appearnce of detailing a surface, it's going to appear sort of strange at times, especially if you move the model around. Normal mapping, however, because it actually interacts with the lighting and helps redefine the calculation of a surface normals at render time, doesn't have those constraints. Just look at any really killer looking video game. The Gears of War stuff comes to mind immediately for me. You'll se some freakish amounts of detail, but those models are really low res, especially compared to what Poser users are used to. One of the primary methods of achieving that detail is normal mapping. I jumped for joy when it was adopted into Poser Pro, jumped even higher when it was adopted into DS3 and as far it being in a "regular" version of Poser... well, it's about high time. -Les

Quote - Just look at any really killer looking video game.

To me a really killer video game is pong

Thanks for the info on this.

Poserverse The New Home for NYGUY's Freebies

The hotfix enabling normal maps in Poser 8 is now live.

does this hotfix fix the problems with alternate_diffuse and specular?

What problem, ice-boy? :) I can check if I know what to look for :)

I already said it doesn't fix it in another thread.

sixus1, I appreciate that you wrote all that to help people, but I must respectfully disagree. Bump maps and normal maps encode the same information, but in a different way. The normal map is faster/easier for a real-time renderer to decode, but the results are the same as with an equivalent bump map. Bump maps do react to light. In a software-only renderer like Poser which is spending tons more time on other things, the normal maps have no particular speed advantage. Furthermore, a bump map intensity/depth can be dialed at will, whereas a normal map will always produce the same intensity/depth - it's baked in. That's why it's faster - the effective change in the normal is hard-coded in a normal map. The effective change in the normal must be calculated in a bump map. The fact that it is calculated offers the opportunity to modify/alter the results of that calculation by adjusting the bump depth.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Uhm.. BB.. are you saying that bump maps are better than normal maps then? I'm still trying to figure out where those normal maps would be an advantage.. and now I'm even more confuzzled :unsure:

Yes bump maps are better than normal maps, unless you don't have a bump map such as when you are trying to render game content.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here is a single polygon with a bump map applied. The light is coming from above.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here the light is from the right.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here the light is from below left.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here the bump depth is set to .01 inch. Before, it was .05 inch.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here the bump depth is .25 inch.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

.25 inch depth, light from right side.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

.01 inch, light from right side.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

awaiting similar pics made with normal maps

I don't have any normal maps. I could make one but it would be difficult as I don't have any tools that do that easily.

I have asked repeatedly (this makes the seventh time) in this forum for anybody to make a pair of matching bump and normal maps, and show me renders where the normal maps are better.

Every tool that I know of that makes normal maps, does so by first starting from a bump map, and a user-specified depth. In other words, the normal map is completely generated from a bump map and a specified desired depth, which means that the bump map is more general, while the normal map is baked permanently at that depth.

The renders would be the same, but with the bump map you could change the depth on the fly direclty in Poser. With only a normal map, you'd have to go to the other tool and specify a new depth to create a new baked normal map. Poser is doing what those tools do, generating internally a normal map from a bump map and a desired depth.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

BM.

Here is another reason bump maps are superior. You cannot do this with a normal map. The information is encoded differently.

A bump map does not specify changes in brightness. It specifies changes in height from the original un-bumpy polygon.

Here I used the bump map not only to alter the normals, but also to alter the colors and the specularity.

Again, you cannot do this with a normal map.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Look how easily I change the colors, and observe the reaction to the light in a new direction.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Nvidia has one that works as a photoshop-compatible plugin and it's pretty easy

http://developer.nvidia.com/object/photoshop_dds_plugins.html

.

Here's a closeup showing the fine detail. No problem for the bump map.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Still more bump map magic. Because the height is a single number, I can manipulate the height using math nodes. Observe how the Bias node is able to change the contour on the edge of the tiles.

I've gone so far beyond what normal maps can do now, it's not even a fair comparison anymore.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Changing the bias to .1 instead of .9, I can make the grout wider.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Now I'm really pushing the boundaries. This is almost totally impossible with a normal map. I've combined a procedural bump using a Cellular node with the image based bump.

No contest. Click for full size.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here's the shader.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Now lit with a point light. Observe how the speculars aim toward the light. This is real response to lighting, not faked or baked.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

I really love that last one, BB! Most impressive.

So.. just to be sure I've understood it right: Unless you're animating or doing low rez game stuff, there's no need for normal maps? And since none of these two things are the obvious aim of Poser.. then why have they implemented normal maps at all?

I feel I'm missing something here. It's like there should be some sort of advantage and I can't see it :)

I think it's so you can render using game textures - like if you're doing cinematics for a game, you use the figure and props with the in-game assets, which are likely to be normal maps.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

One big reason for normal maps' popularity is NVidia's .DDS image format, which includes a channel for normal map data.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/photoshop_dds_plugins.html

Like Bagginsbill I don't really see a an advantage to using normal maps over bump maps, as neither can actually disturb the profile of the geometry the way a displacement map can. My fundamental technical understand is a lot weaker (like, zero) though.

My Freebies

Well, actually Nvidia has a particular demonstration of normal map usage that I don't think a bump map could duplicate.
http://developer.nvidia.com/object/melody_home.html

My Freebies

By demonstration, do you mean the rabbit screen shot? Or something else reachable from there?

I don't see anything about that rabbit that is a unique ability of normal maps. What about it seems unique?

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

That may be all well and good for Poser, but I have to say I've never been able to achieve the depth and detail from a bump map as I can with a normal map. In "other" render engines, that is.

Quote - By demonstration, do you mean the rabbit screen shot? Or something else reachable from there?

I don't see anything about that rabbit that is a unique ability of normal maps. What about it seems unique?

On second glance, that screenshot is misleading; on the left is an actual high-poly model. So I'm with you, yeah.

Mike, maybe you can show a demonstration?

My Freebies

Quote -
Every tool that I know of that makes normal maps, does so by first starting from a bump map, and a user-specified depth. In other words, the normal map is completely generated from a bump map and a specified desired depth, which means that the bump map is more general, while the normal map is baked permanently at that depth.

Zbrush and Mudbox, in my understanding of it, don't do it like that.
They calculate the difference of the sculpted detail on the high res mesh from the unsculpted detail of the low res mesh and create a normal map of it based on the mesh's UVs, not from a grayscale image.

I couldn't claim to know mathematically how it works, but I use ZBrush and it's a fascinating thing to watch, as it generates the normal map - it literally examines every polygon and compares it to its high res counterpart.

Now I suppose there are cases where grayscale bump maps are used to generate normal maps for .dds files, but that's really a hack - most normal maps these days are generated directly from the geometry itself.

Quote -
Mike, maybe you can show a demonstration?

I can, yeah, but not right now.
But I'm really interested in Poser's implementation of normal maps and have brought the subject up a few times recently.
I'll bookmark this thread and throw something in here some time tomorrow, but it will be with Lightwave.

Mike I don't get what you're saying.

You said they calculate the difference of the sculpted detail on the high res mesh from the unsculpted detail of the low res mesh. What do you mean by "detail"?

In the renders I did above, the low res mesh was just one polygon. It doesn't get any more low res than that. What looks un-detailed to you there?

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

When you say "not from a grayscale image", now the words are being twisted. Forget the term grayscale image. Instead, think "topology delta matrix". Given a topology delta matrix, i.e. the difference between two meshes as measured along the surface normal vector from one to the other, you end up with exactly the data found in a bump map.

See what I mean? From that, you can construct all the normals.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Mike,
There are some here that use NormalMaps and some that don't., I personally don't believe there is a right or wrong answer to this question...it is, what it is.
You do or you don't.

If you are going to use NormalMaps I would encourage you to create and use them with TangentSpace.

Hope this helps

Comitted to excellence through art.

Quote - When you say "not from a grayscale image", now the words are being twisted. Forget the term grayscale image. Instead, think "topology delta matrix". Given a topology delta matrix, i.e. the difference between two meshes as measured along the surface normal vector from one to the other, you end up with exactly the data found in a bump map.

See what I mean? From that, you can construct all the normals.

There is a technical difference in that normal maps make use of three color channels (RGB) to disturb the normal on X, Y and Z axes, whereas bump maps only use one to disturb the normal on Y. So what he's saying about grayscale vs. not-grayscale does matter, at least on paper. However you're still stuck with not being able to disturb the actual profile of the geometry; both techniques just give you a shading effect. Raytraced shadows will ignore bump maps for sure, and any place where the horizon of a model is visible, it will still be perfectly smooth.

Here's a good example I found of what MIGHT be possible:
http://www.game-artist.net/forums/support-tech-discussion/7756-bump-maps-vs-normal-maps.html

I don't know if Poser's shadows (raytraced or depthmapped) will accurately reproduce the kind of self-shadowing demonstrated there, I tend to doubt it. I don't have anything normal mapped handy to test it with.

My Freebies

Quote - I personally don't believe there is a right or wrong answer to this question...it is, what it is.
You do or you don't.

Nonsense, there's either a real technical advantage, or using normal maps is quite a bit more work for no purpose (at least if you're really doing a proper x/y/z normal map).

My Freebies

Bagginsbill you'd like this thread, there is math in it.
http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=36160

My Freebies

No, bump maps do not disturb the normal on Y. They disturb the virtual position, which is also going to move a point in 3 dimensions. They indicate the virtual position of a displaced surface with respect to the original surface along the original surface normal. Then the gradient of this new virtual surface is calculated, producing new normals, which are substituted back to the original surface.

In both cases, 3 values are altered. For bump, it is position, which results in new XYZ vector components for the normal.

The math is straightforward, even if not everybody here believes me. I got an 800 on my Physics SAT, and got an A in calculus at MIT, if that helps anybody trust my word on this.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Okay, here's an example that really shows a true advantage for normal maps:
http://www.taron.de/Neckling.htm

Pretty sure you can't get this kind of effect with just a bump map, like how the ears and nostrils have a very convincing appearance of depth.

My Freebies

That says displacement dude. Look at the words on the top.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - Bagginsbill you'd like this thread, there is math in it.
http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=36160

OK. I read that, and the guys that know what they're talking about said the same as me. The only thing that slightly sounds funny there is somebody mentioned a degree of accuracy possible with normal maps that he claimed isn't possible with bump maps. He's wrong. The expression of a vector using 3 8-bit vector components is no more accurate than the displacement, especially if the displacement is a 16-bit grayscale map. There are certain slopes that cannot be expressed in either, but in practice these are variations that cannot be seen by any human.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Anyway, I'm not interested in convincing others of the math. Prove me wrong with a visual and I will acknowledge it. I want to see a properly made normal map do something visually identifiable as "better" than a properly made bump map. Improperly made maps of either kind won't count.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - That says displacement dude. Look at the words on the top.

So it does, I didn't read the text on the image because the cool factor of the image itself was making my eyes bug out. I blame it on the forum that directed me there. While I've read a lot of documentation that says normal maps have an advantage, that is only on paper (or LCD emitters really), and I agree I haven't really seen anything that I don't think could be done with a bump map. You still can't alter the base geometry in profile or modify non-self shadows with either method.

My Freebies

Quote - > Quote - I personally don't believe there is a right or wrong answer to this question...it is, what it is.

You do or you don't.

Nonsense, there's either a real technical advantage, or using normal maps is quite a bit more work for no purpose (at least if you're really doing a proper x/y/z normal map).

Pjz99,
The reason for the way I worded my statement was I didn't want to get into a war of words. I use normal maps and like how they work. Nuff' said.

Comitted to excellence through art.

The Andy materials for the Mannequin use a normal map. At settings above1.5 black artifacts begin to show up. The maps actually work best when set to Gradient Bump, and negative values are used.

LMK

Probably edited for spelling, grammer, punctuation, or typos.

Quote - When you say "not from a grayscale image", now the words are being twisted. Forget the term grayscale image. Instead, think "topology delta matrix". Given a topology delta matrix, i.e. the difference between two meshes as measured along the surface normal vector from one to the other, you end up with exactly the data found in a bump map.

See what I mean? From that, you can construct all the normals.

Yeah, you know what Bill?
After I posted the few comments above and started planning how I could go about illustrating what I meant, I went back and re-read what you had written. I did that because I thought to myself there's no way BB is going to give such a simplistic answer and expect it to be taken as fact. So I figured something was up. ;-)
I realized I had read it wrong and I now see what you meant. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to take you out of context. I should have edited my reply, but I was already involved in something else. Got a nice fresh bottle of Jack Daniels here too. ;-)

Quote -

If you are going to use NormalMaps I would encourage you to create and use them with TangentSpace.

Hope this helps

Yeah, I read the Poser Pro normal pdf file.
The normal map tests I've done in Poser Pro (zBrush) have resulted in "bumps" that were seemingly largely inverted. I don't know if that's because of Poser, or because I passed the object through LW first and on to ZB as OBJ.
I use "Maya Tangent Space" for LW though - seems to yield the best results.

Jack Daniels here too, Mike, no kidding!! Great minds drink alike.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Ice and Coke or straight? ;-)

Dear lord straight man, straight, why ruin a decent drink

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote - > Quote -

If you are going to use NormalMaps I would encourage you to create and use them with TangentSpace.

Hope this helps

Yeah, I read the Poser Pro normal pdf file.
The normal map tests I've done in Poser Pro (zBrush) have resulted in "bumps" that were seemingly largely inverted. I don't know if that's because of Poser, or because I passed the object through LW first and on to ZB as OBJ.
I use "Maya Tangent Space" for LW though - seems to yield the best results.

I know why they're inverted. And I know how to fix it in Poser, if you want to.

The XYZ components of the normals are stored in red, green blue. However, there is some disagreement among applications as to which direction each goes. Poser (as usual) disagrees with most other applications in the green (Y) channel, although it agrees in red (X) and blue (Z).

This is not entirely Poser's fault, though. It has to do with whether you are in a right-handed coordinate space or a left-handed coordinate space. Neither is more correct, and some apps are left, others right. I have even seen some apps that generate normal maps offer an option that you toggle, something like "Y is Up or Down?".

You have to invert the green component, using Color_Math nodes. Once you do that, you can directly use normal maps made in other applications that are opposite handed. Do you want me to show how?

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Sorry, Ice and Coke. However, give me scotch and it's straight.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - Mike I don't get what you're saying.

You said they calculate the difference of the sculpted detail on the high res mesh from the unsculpted detail of the low res mesh. What do you mean by "detail"?

In the renders I did above, the low res mesh was just one polygon. It doesn't get any more low res than that. What looks un-detailed to you there?

Oh I missed this post earlier.
That was a ZBrush reference which I didn't make clear. In ZB you typically crank up the polygon count of a model into the millions and then sculpt extreme detail into it. But you have to go back to your lowest subdivision level before generating a normal (or displacement) map for the model, so it can read the difference. The difference being the detail sculpted into the high res version.

honestly, it's best suited for apps that are able to render subdivision surfaces where you can control the render sub-d level.

Quote - Sorry, Ice and Coke. However, give me scotch and it's straight.

That's fine.
I do straight, but only when I'm partying with my friends. Getting old, you know. Coke and ice creates a nice buffer, reduces the potential for the embarassing passout reflex. ;-)

I know how it works. I thought maybe your use of the word "detail" was implying that bump maps cannot produce detail as well as normal maps. That is the crux of the question - why use normal maps? The only answer so far is "because that's what I have" (not a bad answer) or "because I read somewhere that they're better but I can't prove it". :-)

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

You know, to tell you honestly Bill, I'm not sure.
I do know I've read that normal maps are more powerful and versatile than bump maps. I do know that my own tests have proved that.
Then again, I never made my own bump maps (aside from procedural), and only started using normal maps when it became.... errmm... "normal" to do so in place of bump maps.

I won't say it is almost the same thing, considering the sheer popularity of normal maps and the number of pros who advocate them, but I also can't say (and prove) that they're better than bump maps either.

Maybe it's just a huge scam, far as I know, created by Pixologic and Autodesk.. but, when it comes to sculpting something in a sculpting app and exporting the textures and expecting to see in your rendering app what you see in your sculpting app, normal maps are at least far easier to deal with and to get results with. :-)

I edited my reply above due to a major typo where I said that I can't prove, yadayadyada....
The JD has won tonight's round. ;-)

But I want to continue this, because I'm intrigued - not just what Poser 8 can do with normal maps, but normal maps vs. bump maps in general.

But it's time to sign off... will continue this tomorrow....

For those wondering about the advantage of normal maps over bump maps, go to the link provided by pjz99 here, and take a look at the first two examples (bump and normal/parallax). Especially notice the two details on the left (the spherical protrusion and the truncated cone). Notice how the normal map actually looks right given the viewing angle, whereas the bump map just looks wrong.

Nod, the big question is really "will Poser render them any different".

My Freebies

Now you're talking about parallax mapping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_mapping

Of course the truncated cone looks better - but that's not an endorsement of normal maps. It's an endorsement of parallax maps. Poser doesn't do parallax mapping. It could, but if it did, it could do it with bump maps too.

Start over - show me the difference between bump mapping and normal mapping.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

In case you miss it in the wikipedia article:

Parallax mapping (also called offset mapping or virtual displacement mapping) is an enhancement of the bump mapping or normal mapping techniques.

Also, I'm mystified as to why this is even of interest, when in Poser we have not just virtual displacement mapping, but REAL displacement mapping.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote -
Also, I'm mystified as to why this is even of interest, when in Poser we have not just virtual displacement mapping, but REAL displacement mapping.

Sorry, man, I'd have to disagree with that.
"REAL" displacement mapping involves micro-poly displacement of a subdivided model; the displacement map imitates huge displacements of a polygon model in the millions, while using only thousands, in subpatch, at render time.
Poser can't subdivide a mesh, at render time or at any other time. Yet.
Is one of my UberPoser wishes. ;-)

from what i undertand normal maps give you a more accurate 3D look like displacements but as fast as bump maps.

i think i saw some examples where a low polygon model with normal maps looks detailed and even more smooth.

can bump do this? a low poly model that has a sharp mesh? and then make it more round and smooth?

I think what you're seeing, at least in the top row, is either displacement maps, or normal maps showing the evolution from low res geometry to finished product.
Like bump maps, normal maps cannot physically alter the geometry - only displacement maps can do that, but also only when the geometry shape is close to the shape of the displacement (optimal), and is a subdivision surface that allows micro-poly displacement at render time - where the polygons are physically subdivded by the render engine in order to be able to show more detail.
Kinda like half a morph vertex map, in that it doesn't need the same point count to approximate the shape.

The bottom row looks more like normal maps, but it still looks like there's some subdivision going on.

the example of the monster.

high res mesh
low res mesh
3: low res mesh with normal map

I'm not sure about that. There are at least two places on the low res mesh with normal map (far right) where the geometry in the silhouette definitely looks altered, perturbed, as with a displacement map.

Could be the POV though, could be that I've been up for almost 48 hours with no sleep. ;-)

On closer look, it does look like only a normal map.
But that's definitely a sub-d geometry.

Quote -
can bump do this? a low poly model that has a sharp mesh? and then make it more round and smooth?

I didn't notice this question earlier, but no, a bump map can't make the geometry more round or smooth, but then again neither can a normal map.
All the biggie 3D apps (far as I know) allow for subdividing geometry at render time and/or in OpenGL (or DirectX) display to customizable levels. That's probably where that figure gets the smoothing look, although some programs such as Maya allow for actual normal smoothing, which isn't the same as surface smoothing or subdividing.
The normal map is just icing on the cake, for the sake of detail. A high res 32 bit displacement map over a highly subdivided object would look a lot better.

But I suspect you know all that and it's just a rhetorical question.

OK here is my lil test.

I made a quickie model (excuse the texture) this morning. From left to right

No Bump or Normal Map
Bump Only
Normal Only

The model was made in 3d coat, which auto generated the Normal and Bump map at the same time.

I rendered with the default bump value of 0.08 but the bump map hardly showed up, this one is with a value of 1, which shows up some details as well as the Normal Map (also value 1) but distorts other parts too much.

As I said I don't know the full mechanics of it, but I am very happy with the results with the Normal Map :)

John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote - from what i undertand normal maps give you a more accurate 3D look like displacements but as fast as bump maps.

i think i saw some examples where a low polygon model with normal maps looks detailed and even more smooth.

... [ pictures ]

can bump do this? a low poly model that has a sharp mesh? and then make it more round and smooth?

Yes it can do this.

Guys, because you keep saying the same non-responsive things, I'm forced to keep repeating myself and sounding more and more peeved. Please don't interpret what I'm saying here as being pissed off. I have to explain again in ever more excruciating detail what I'm saying because it's not getting through.

When the renderer processes a bump map (procedural or image based, doesn't matter), the final result is that normals are altered, exactly the same result as a normal map. The bump map represents the starting information in a different way, but the result is the same. Surface normals are varied from their original direction. The variation can be smooth and rounded or sharp. It can change a sharp edged thing to smoothly rounded, and it can change a smoothly rounded thing to sharp edged. IN APPEARANCE ONLY. The sillhouette (spelling?) remains unchanged.

Showing pictures of beautiful results via normal mapping does not demostrate a DIFFERENCE between bump maps and normal maps. It is flawed logic to present a nice normal-mapped render and claim that endorses or proves that normal maps are different from bump maps in outcome.

It's like I asked you what's the difference between a Ford and a Chevy truck, and you keep saying "Well the Chevy let's you haul things and pull a trailer." That's not a difference, because the Ford also hauls things and pulls trailers. Is that clear?

Do not keep saying that normal maps can make flat things rounded. Bump maps also can make flat things rounded. Do not say that normal maps can capture the normals of a high poly mech and make a low poly mesh look like a high poly mesh. I agree, that is what normal maps do. I do not agree that that is the difference. Bump maps ALSO make a low poly mehs look like a high poly mesh.

I'm responding to ice-boy here, but there are more posts after that one that I haven't read yet. So if somebody said something interesting between ice-boy's pictures and my response here, give me a few minutes to read the rest.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - OK here is my lil test.

I made a quickie model (excuse the texture) this morning. From left to right

No Bump or Normal Map
Bump Only
Normal Only

The model was made in 3d coat, which auto generated the Normal and Bump map at the same time.

I rendered with the default bump value of 0.08 but the bump map hardly showed up, this one is with a value of 1, which shows up some details as well as the Normal Map (also value 1) but distorts other parts too much.

As I said I don't know the full mechanics of it, but I am very happy with the results with the Normal Map :)

John

In addition to "properly made" I should have also required "properly used".

When you plug in the bump map, you have to correctly specify the depth to interpret it. When you say you used a "value of 1", without specifying units, I don't even know what depth you dialed in. But the point it that unless you enter the matching depth that the modeler used, it will not evaluate to the same virtual surface.

Which actually shows an advantage in USE, not in capability, now that I think about it.

Fugazi gets a point for accidentally showing a useful difference.

Because of how the bump map is encoded, I argued that it is better and more powerful because you can change the bump depth at will to vary the strength of the effect. But having done so, he has inadvertantly demonstrated that the bump map does not result in the smooth transformation of normals to the exact desired target virtual shape, UNLESS he correctly enters the key information - what is the correct depth?

So this is interesting. When using a bump map for specific SHAPING, you probably will not know what exact depth to use. The normal map, being that it doesn't ALLOW you to change the depth and has it hard-coded, does not vary from the desired virtual shape.

Fugazi gets 1 point, but only because he doesn't know the correct value to type in to Bump depth. If he knew, then it would look the same.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

So I'm going to say this from now on, because clearly this is a benefit for normal maps.

Here's the benefit - you do not need to specify the correct depth to achieve a specific shape that you were using in the modeling tool.

That's good.

The downside is that is the ONLY shape you can get with the normal map you have. If you want any variation of that, you have to get a new normal map. With a bump map, you don't.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Thinking about that some more, there is a variation on that benefit that is likely even more important.

If you have a prop with a bump map for the purpose of altering the virtual shape, and you SCALE the prop, you have to scale the bump depth as well, or you end up with a new virtual shape!

WIth a normal map, you do NOT have to adjust anything - the virtual shape will automatically be scaled as well. That's a very good point and I'm glad to see it.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I now believe that normal maps are better than bump maps for some things. For other things, like my virtual tiles on a single polygon, the bump map is better.

Fugazi gets the full prize, guys.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - > Quote -

Also, I'm mystified as to why this is even of interest, when in Poser we have not just virtual displacement mapping, but REAL displacement mapping.

Sorry, man, I'd have to disagree with that.
"REAL" displacement mapping involves micro-poly displacement of a subdivided model; the displacement map imitates huge displacements of a polygon model in the millions, while using only thousands, in subpatch, at render time.
Poser can't subdivide a mesh, at render time or at any other time. Yet.
Is one of my UberPoser wishes. ;-)

Uh - Mike, Poser (REYES) displacement is precisely and specifically called micro-polygon displacement. Sub-D has nothing to do with it. There's no need to conflate Sub-D with micro-poly displacement.

Let me ask you this. If I showed you a cube (six polygons) that with Poser displacement looks in all ways exactly like a sphere, would that prove to you that displacement in Poser is real and complete and capable of transforming a low poly shape to look just like a high poly shape, or no?

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - Thinking about that some more, there is a variation on that benefit that is likely even more important.

If you have a prop with a bump map for the purpose of altering the virtual shape, and you SCALE the prop, you have to scale the bump depth as well, or you end up with a new virtual shape!

WIth a normal map, you do NOT have to adjust anything - the virtual shape will automatically be scaled as well. That's a very good point and I'm glad to see it.

For that reason, and that reason alone, I now believe that normal maps are better than bump maps for some things. For other things, like my virtual tiles on a single polygon, the bump map is better.

Fugazi gets the full prize, guys.

A prize how marvelous :) though I have a small question. I did try a range of values for the bump map, without magically stumbling on the right value. Is there any way of calculating the correct bump value, or is it educated guesswork? John

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Given how confusing "units" transfer from one application to another, especially with Poser and its funny Native Unit, I'd say the only hope is guesswork. All the more reason why the normal map is better when exporting from one app to another.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote -
The downside is that is the ONLY shape you can get with the normal map you have. If you want any variation of that, you have to get a new normal map. With a bump map, you don't.

I don't see that as a downside though. Every map I ever make, textures, displacements, or normals, I make for a specific purpose, a specific model in a specific setting. It's fun. ;-)

But in other words, I agree normal maps are what they are - WYSIWYG, and I make them with no intention of altering them.
Mostly for furniture and houses and walls and shit, since I mostly do arch-viz.

Oops, are we allowed to say shit here? ;-)
Gotta forgive me, I'm delirious from lack of sleep. Big project that needs to be done... last week.

Quote - Given how confusing "units" transfer from one application to another, especially with Poser and its funny Native Unit, I'd say the only hope is guesswork. All the more reason why the normal map is better when exporting from one app to another.

As with so many things in Poser :) gotta love it though.

Normals seem the way to go, I shall have to experiment on a poser figure now :)

John.

Fugazi (without the aid of a safety net)

https://www.facebook.com/Fugazi3D

Quote -
Uh - Mike, Poser (REYES) displacement is precisely and specifically called micro-polygon displacement. Sub-D has nothing to do with it. There's no need to conflate Sub-D with micro-poly displacement.

Let me ask you this. If I showed you a cube (six polygons) that with Poser displacement looks in all ways exactly like a sphere, would that prove to you that displacement in Poser is real and complete and capable of transforming a low poly shape to look just like a high poly shape, or no?

I really wasn't aware of that. I guess I have to rethink what "subdivision" really means. Apparently it has connotations beyond the obvious.
I know what you mean about the box-to-sphere thing. That's easy enough with typical sub-d in any modeler. I believe you, of course, but I'd like to see it in Poser and know how it's done if you have the time.

Well can I cheat and show the quick and dirty box to almost-a-sphere, for the time being?

I imported a welded 6-polygon box. I enabled smoothing, and set the crease angle to 95 degrees, so all the edges would be smooth. I duplicated it and rotated the second one so a corner is facing us.

It's not exactly a sphere, but it demonstrates micropolygon displacement.

If I were to carefully craft a displacement map (would not be easy - lots of math) I could force it to be a perfect sphere. I don't have time right now to do that.

Smoothing in Poser is basically the same as displacement, except not driven by a map image, but by analyzing the geometry itself.

The flaw is revealed by the ray-traced shadows. Ray tracing is a bag on the side of the REYES renderer, and for ray-traced shadows (or reflection or refraction) the displacement is not implemented except on the vertices. Thus, the true geometry (boxes) are revealed by the shadows. With a higher poly model, this problem is not so obvious. With depth-mapped shadows, this problem doesn't exist - the shadows are round.

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Very interesting Bill, thanks for that. That's geometry smoothing, not just surface smoothing. I never noticed that since when I import things with edges I want to stay sharp I unweld them before exporting.

Quote - The flaw is revealed by the ray-traced shadows.

Still? That's disappointing.

My Freebies

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: did I see somewhere that P8 could use......