Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: Fun with SSS

operaguy opened this issue on Dec 28, 2011 · 171 posts


operaguy posted Wed, 28 December 2011 at 8:48 PM

 

[click for full size.]

Hi all, have not been in this forum for a while. I have been upgrading Poser last few years and thought I'd see how the SSS shaders fair.

Here are a few renders with danae's shader for Dublin. I did not change anything in the IBL lights or the shader nodes. Should be noted, however, that I did morph her head into a somewhat different femme than the Dublin default.

I like it!


operaguy posted Wed, 28 December 2011 at 8:48 PM

 

another...


operaguy posted Wed, 28 December 2011 at 8:49 PM

 

...another....


operaguy posted Wed, 28 December 2011 at 8:49 PM

 

....last one...


RedPhantom posted Wed, 28 December 2011 at 9:30 PM Site Admin

Thanks for posting these. I have her on my wish list and was wondering how well she looked by other users.


Available on Amazon for the Kindle E-Reader Monster of the North and The Shimmering Mage

Today I break my own personal record for the number of days for being alive.
Check out my store here or my free stuff here
I use Poser 13 and win 10


basicwiz posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 12:38 AM

If you really want to take full control of SSS and other render options for skin, try Snarleygribbley's EZSkin script. It gives you a very user friendly control panel that addresses just about every major option. Oh yeah. It's free!

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2841322


jartz posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 1:29 AM

Hey there, Operaguy.  Long time, no see.  How do you like the new version of Poser so far?

 

 

 

J

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Asus N50-600 - Intel Core i5-8400 CPU @ 2.80GHz · Windows 10 Home/11 upgrade 64-bit · 16GB DDR4 RAM · 1TB SSD and 1TB HDD; Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1060 - 6GB GDDR5 VRAM; Software: Poser Pro 11x


RobynsVeil posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 1:30 AM

I think this figure actually came with SSS in the shader (from what I read in the ad). I'm curious to see the shader, but not $14.50-curious. 😉

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


RobynsVeil posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 1:31 AM

And no, don't post screen-shots - Danae might not like that... :lol:

Not that you would, of course... heheheh

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Eric Walters posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 2:50 AM

 A pretty texture!

 

 I'm guessing it uses the scatter node- with a scale of 1 or less. Just my guess!

 

 

Quote - And no, don't post screen-shots - Danae might not like that... :lol:

Not that you would, of course... heheheh



Anthanasius posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 5:10 AM

1 or less it's just the correct value for the wax museum !

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


RobynsVeil posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 5:17 AM

Quote - 1 or less it's just the correct value for the wax museum !

wax

You mean, like this one? I was so rapt with it, though... wow, we're as good as CGSociety, now! :lol:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Anthanasius posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 7:30 AM

Ok, now read ;)

 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2839884&page=2

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


hborre posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 9:06 AM

Anthanasius, it's nice to point out such a valuable technical resource, however there are some of us that do not read French.  Would it be possible to kindly provide a translation?


bagginsbill posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 9:12 AM

Basically Anthanasius said that the lower the scale, the more translucent is the material.

Note that I compensated for this in my first postings on scatter by mixing with diffuse. Later I simplified by increasing the scale.


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)


hborre posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 9:22 AM

Ah, thanks for the abridged edition, BB.


meatSim posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 9:34 AM

that dublin texture/shader does look great.. almost had me willing to dump just a little more money into v4.. still might it is a different texture than anything else I have for her, and the SSS shader seems to render very well, I'd like to get a look under the hood.. very tempting


operaguy posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 9:54 AM

If there is an implication here that the renders I posted seem "too much," I can also see that. If I push further with Poser for stills (I am starting up with Messiah for animation now), I'd go for some tempering of the SSS. But right out of the box it is just fun to wallow and indulge in the glow. It is delicious.

Thanks for the link to EZSkin! I have not tried it yet but looks good.

Agree it would not be right to show a screen shot of Danae's shader nodes. I will say that it is not just the SSS nodes, but also some strong specular and bump mapping. She did a good job. I hope she revives Rio and Manhattan with an SSS pose and also provides non-makeup textures for them both.

@jartz: So far so good with PoserPro 2012. I have not yet installed SR1. Renders faster, in my opinion.

::::: Opera :::::

 

 


vilters posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 9:56 AM

Dublin needs some displacement for her brows.

The skin could do with some bump/displacement also.

Color and light look good, just less wax and more bump/displacement.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!


RobynsVeil posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 3:09 PM

> Quote - Ok, now read ;) > >   > > http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2839884&page=2

That was then. This is now. And thanks for the link - j'ai tout compris. Merci bien.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


operaguy posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 3:30 PM

 

[click for full]

i made a bump map for the brows and increased the intensity of the existing face and lips bump maps.

that by itself pulled down the so-called "wax effect" in my opinion.

::::: Opera :::::


richardson posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 4:07 PM

Scatter scale on that shader is at 0.85. What Anthanasius suggests is closer to 1.75. The skin is really nice nonetheless and looks even better with less glow.

I think RobynsVeil has it close on her Antonia shader.


Michael314 posted Thu, 29 December 2011 at 4:52 PM

Hello,

how are the texture maps? I have danae's Rio, those textures have some burned-in speculars, but I could get rid of them using bagginsbill's shader technique, and apart from that, the textures are nice.

I'm also tempted to get Dublin, but would be interested to learn about the speculars before. 

Best regards,

   Michael

 


MistyLaraCarrara posted Fri, 30 December 2011 at 8:36 AM

with SSS on, do we still use specular and specular maps?  is it better to set specular to 0.0 ?



♥ My Gallery Albums    ♥   My YT   ♥   Party in the CarrarArtists Forum  ♪♪ 10 years of Carrara forum ♥ My FreeStuff


ashley9803 posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 2:43 AM

LOL, I've been missing in action for some time too.

But I have been playing with the new SSS thingy too, and taking out P2012 for a sin.

The Wacro SSS doesn't do much for me honestly but the shader nodes that come with some new characters are very nice.

I think they work for me best with a specular light in the scene. Here is K4 with GND Anastasia's nodes. I'll try them out on V4 and M4 next. Click to enlarge image.


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 9:36 AM

Quote - but the shader nodes that come with some new characters are very nice.

Which look a lot like the ones I posted at RDNA. You don't need to buy characters to get a good SSS setup. I posted 4.

In the image you show above, it looks like the skin bump is done with turbulence - a tactic I showed was better than almost all the bump maps ever made. It does look nice, eh?


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)


Winterclaw posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 9:59 AM

Quote - with SSS on, do we still use specular and specular maps?  is it better to set specular to 0.0 ?

 

I'm going to take a guess and say no (assuming you are using blinn as your specular part).  SSS is how light reacts under the skin, specular is how shiny the skin is.  Just because you have stuff going on underneath doesn't mean you can't have some shininess on the outside.  In fact I just held my hand up to an indoor light and with the light coming in from the window, I could see both SSS and shininess. 

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


richardson posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 10:08 AM

Here some sss tests. I think specular is the big realism killer now. Perhaps driving blinn through spec maps will bring it under control. next year...

Anthanasius posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 11:42 AM

I'm curious to know how this shader is done ... and how it interact when changing light !

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


ashley9803 posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 12:04 PM

The problem I find with doing IDL renders, is that while the lighting is great, it kills all skin specularity. The only way I can overcome this is not through skin nodes, but with a specular light in the scene. Otherwise skin looks flat and lifeless.

It's ironic that SSS has re-introduced the old devil of nostril glow. Not really glow but SSS translucency makes nostrils too well lit. And AO nodes can't fix that, for reasons that bagginsbill would understand much better than me.


operaguy posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 12:29 PM

Michael, the texture maps for Dublin have no significant highlights. There is a little at at the corner of the eyes and tip of the nose. The painted-on hair is free of specular.

 

:::::: Opera :::::


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:11 PM

I was very impressed with the Dublin promos and with operaguy's renders, and with a gift certificate burning its way to expiration, I bought Dublin.

Very nice texture set.

The shader is almost exactly the Diffuse+Scatter blended shader I posted at RDNA. The scatter has been lowered, which is making it a bit more waxy, and the color map has been used for bump, which I frown upon, but otherwise it's the same as what I posted. The extra translucence in this shader is arguably a correct way to go given the character is a fair-skinned lass! To each his own - we can all adjust the scatter scale. That's the great thing about Poser products - they're not closed up.

I'm very excited to have a new set of textures to mess around with - this one is very 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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:12 PM

Very first test render. Too bad I have to go to a New Year's party. LOL

I like this texture set.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:19 PM

I know this is going to sound petty, but why don't vendors give credit where credit is due?

I've seen variants of your shader in a number of figures now, BB... won't say who, but in none of them do they even mention where they got the idea from. It would be a nice gesture, anyway.

Antonia WM wears a variant of your shader - not one you particularly agree with, but the basic idea came from you. Credit was given.

'Course, I'm not selling anything. Maybe that's it.

<climbing off my soapbox to boos, jeers and hisses>

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:19 PM

I used SnarlyGribbly's EZSkin to quickly replace the skin shader - a different shader also published at RDNA. No more waxy, since the scatter scale is now 1.5. (EZSkin changed the eyes, too, which I see are not reflecting my spotlights. I think EZSkin's eye shader might need adjusting.)

Do I see burned-in specular on the lips? I don't have time to investigate. If that is burned-in, I'm a little disappointed.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:20 PM

Oh, and I'll still buy this texture set... when it goes on special. Even if it for V4. :lol:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:21 PM

Yeah, Robyn, I noticed that. But - it's no big deal.

What I really want to put a stop to is people thinking they need to buy these textures just to get the shaders. I published the shaders for free, and people who use them are supposed to link to those in the readme, so that other users know where to get the shaders, and know they can use them in their own work.


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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:25 PM

Wow - this is some nice texture work. Still don't know if that is burned-in specular or not, but hell it looks good, right?

OK - gotta go to my party. Happy New Year!


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)


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:27 PM

I won't say any more...seems to be a vendor mentality thing. Dunno. :glare:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:28 PM

Happy New Year to YOU, Bagginsbill!!! :woot:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:44 PM

Wife is not ready to go yet, so one more test render. This confirms the dreaded burned-in specular. I'm using a single infinite light from the right side. There should be no highlights on the middle of the lip. You can see the real one on the side. The fake ones are stuck and in this low light they look like a disease.

I see a little on the nose tip, too.

Sigh.

 


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)


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 5:55 PM

Yep, and really hard to photoshop out: tried it and failed - really need to try your technique. So, the face texture gets displayed on a hi-res square, right? nodes applied and render saved to 3000 x 3000 image. Or whatever.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


operaguy posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 6:39 PM

If you go into the material room and click the "idiot button" called "add SSS" it just throws in the SSS Skin node. That does not a full shader make. So, danae arrived at her complex of nodes in some way. I agree that if it arose out of a study of BB's explorations and free shaders, it would have been proper and fair for an acknowlegement.

Further, since tweaking is unavoidable, we have to learn what the various nodes and settings therin actually do. So, study of BB's work seems indicated regardless. So, I am echoing that it is not necessarily necessary [!] to purchase a package to obtain and learn to manipulate a full SSS shader. Thanks for your essay in the craft, BB.

I am not a blind champion of danae, having gone to extent of requesting a refund on RIO once it became clear there was no non-makeup texture. In our exchange, danae simply did not think this was an important issue.

And apparently BB is now saying the dreaded painted-in specular can be detected in Dublin. I'd say this is relative, as having gazed with horror at many atrocities in the past, this set looks quite matte and even to me. It is not impacting my renders.

All that having been said, whoever executed the photoshoot and workup of this skin from life did a great job. I am glad to have it. Thanks danae.

::::: Opera :::::

 


operaguy posted Sat, 31 December 2011 at 11:40 PM

 

[click for full]

I decided she needed real hair.

::::: Opera :::::


Anthanasius posted Sun, 01 January 2012 at 3:58 AM

People have a big problem to understand a real simply thing, with SSS we no longer need complex shader with 100 or 1000 nodes.

You can create a very realistic shader with less than 10 nodes.

If some people need to hard work with nodes, return under P8 or P7 ;)

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


Michael314 posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 1:00 PM

Quote - Michael, the texture maps for Dublin have no significant highlights. There is a little at at the corner of the eyes and tip of the nose. The painted-on hair is free of specular.

 

:::::: Opera :::::

Thanks for the info!  I like the textures, so they're now on my wishlist. I can live with the smaller speculars bagginsbill mentions below.

Best regards,

    Michael

 


LilWolff posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 9:50 PM

Such lovely texture!  The third from the top of operaguy's pictures is a look I have seen from my Mom. LOL

I also thought it was very nice of the artist to include her thanks to bagginsbill in the description. Probably more people will see it there since many do not read the read me.

I said (to myself) no more V4 textures since I do have many but this is just to beautiful to pass up.

 


RobynsVeil posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 9:56 PM

Quote - Such lovely texture!  The third from the top of operaguy's pictures is a look I have seen from my Mom. LOL I also thought it was very nice of the artist to include her thanks to bagginsbill in the description. Probably more people will see it there since many do not read the read me.

I said (to myself) no more V4 textures since I do have many but this is just to beautiful to pass up.

I agree - that does Danae considerable credit... shows a lot of integrity. 😄

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 10:02 PM

Danae wrote me a lovely note a couple days ago. I haven't had time to answer her. Hope she's reading. Thanks for the note and the acknowledgement, D.

I'm overwhelmed with work myself today, otherwise I'd be playing more with the texture and showing you guys stuff.


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)


Eric Walters posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 10:33 PM

OK so I was wrong it was 0.85! I was sure it was 1! :-) I've been using BB's shaders and some variants since he first started posting them. Nice to see the Dublin texture set. I'm confused- did Danae acknowledge BB or not?It's gorgeous btw.

I have seen baby skin look like a scale setting of 1 was used- so there are real world examples. Most don't have the dreaded arm pit glow-or burned in lip speculars. It looks like chapped lips more than a disease. I had a similar results by creating a skin texture from some web pics of Megan Fox- the chapped lips look.

As I've said on the RDNA forums- the single click skin shader is no way as good as the scatter+ Blinn or Scatter + FBR. The FBR version is used in a product by Sureality called "Tamesis." I first saw the FBR technique used by Carodan on RDNA.I think the scale setting is also less than one- although I've reset mine to over one. I don't think 1.75 should be etched in stone-some people have a little more translucence than others.Maybe an OFFICIAL range of 1.2 to 1.75? Just kidding-but

 My usual strategy is just to load a full body Material I've saved- with one of the SSS setups from the forums-then substitute the new texture maps. I agree that turbulence is the way to go for bump maps- I dont use any of the greyscale versions of the texture maps anymore.



RobynsVeil posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 10:58 PM

Quote - ... I'm confused- did Danae acknowledge BB or not?...

...

She did acknowledge Bagginsbill's work. Very nice of her, too! I was wrong.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 10:58 PM

Quote -  I'm confused- did Danae acknowledge BB or not?

Before this thread, no, but she added it and wrote to me. It was an oversight, not intentional.

I, too, am sure that baby skin is as translucent as we get with scale=1. I think the range 1.25 to 1.75 is reasonable.


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)


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 10:59 PM

Quote - > Quote - ... I'm confused- did Danae acknowledge BB or not?...

...

She did acknowledge Bagginsbill's work. Very nice of her, too! I was wrong.

Weren't wrong. She read this thread and fixed 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)


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:06 PM

I'm working on other stuff, but doing little test renders in the background. Thought I'd share.

Scale here is 1.25. Shader is my S+B shader, not the one it comes with.

Lit with one infinite and using IDL with EnvSphere.

I used the red lipstick texture to avoid the burned-in specular problem.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:12 PM

Quote - I'm working on other stuff, but doing little test renders in the background. Thought I'd share.

Scale here is 1.25. Shader is my S+B shader, not the one it comes with.

Lit with one infinite and using IDL with EnvSphere.

I used the red lipstick texture to avoid the burned-in specular problem.

Danae made some incredible skin. Nicely enhanced with your shader...

Speaking of burnt-in spec... struggling with that atm... when you get a chance. In case you missed it. Being a bit thick about this, I think... :blink:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


operaguy posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:18 PM

bb did you paint the wispy hair in post?

If not, how achieved?


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:20 PM

Quote - Speaking of burnt-in spec... struggling with that atm... when you get a chance. In case you missed it. Being a bit thick about this, I think... :blink:

I saw that already but I'm really busy with work. Doing an all nighter now, coding for cash!

I did some experiments with a new tactic for removing highlights. It's not awesome yet, but it's interesting. Nothing worth publishing yet.


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)


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:22 PM

Quote - bb did you paint the wispy hair in post?

If not, how achieved?

Not painted. I bought a hair set with my gift certificate at the same time that I bought Dublin.

It's this set

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/sissy-le-beaux-hair-sets/87741

You get two hairs for under $10 and they are pretty good.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:24 PM

Quote - > Quote - Speaking of burnt-in spec... struggling with that atm... when you get a chance. In case you missed it. Being a bit thick about this, I think... :blink:

I saw that already but I'm really busy with work. Doing an all nighter now, coding for cash!

I did some experiments with a new tactic for removing highlights. It's not awesome yet, but it's interesting. Nothing worth publishing yet.

Not a worry! Good luck with it! 😄

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:27 PM

I can't pose to save my life - no patience. I'm sure you people can do something better with this. Just giving ideas.

I used the gold lame' shader I published years ago. It looks even better now with IDL + GC.

The EnvSphere is a free HDR called doge something or other.


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)


operaguy posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:34 PM

that is saint marks square, venice, i believe

pose tip: with inverse k on, grab hips, move around, or use hip rotate and translate dials


RobynsVeil posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:42 PM

Really hard to code and pose all at the same time. I know, I tried, and I'm only writing in Python.... 😉

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Winterclaw posted Mon, 02 January 2012 at 11:52 PM

Quote - I did some experiments with a new tactic for removing highlights. It's not awesome yet, but it's interesting. Nothing worth publishing yet.

 

This sounds interesting to hear.  Particularly how you would end up with the right color after you've figured out where the burnt in specular and shadows are.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


bagginsbill posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 12:07 AM

Here's the BiS idea I'm noodling around.

Suppose you have a pretty strong (but obviously not exact) knowledge of the ratio between red (r) and blue (b) in a given area of a texture map. For skin that is pretty smooth, or for lips, both are generally consistent. Some pixels are brighter or darker, but still the same hue, and this relationship is basically expressed like this:

r = kb

This is saying the red is some known, fixed multiple of the blue (approximately).

We could also say something about green, but I'm not that far along yet.

OK, so what does specularity do? It adds something to red, green, and blue in roughly equal amounts. So let's call the amount of specular highlight (which we don't know and varies widely) the letter s.

And let us denote the actual color components that we find in a texture with the capital letters R, G, or B. (Again I'm ignoring green for the moment so I'm only going to use equations for red and blue.)

Now, the true red value, little r, relates to the texture red value, big R, as follows:

R = r + s

Similarly:

B = b + s

Why? Because that is how highlights work. The diffuse r, g, or b value gets added with the specular highlight value (gray/white).

So our problem is how to get back the true diffuse value r, g, or b?

Well, I'm assuming that for generally pink skin, we know the value of k, such that:

r = kb

Let's replace r with kb in the first equation. The two equations are then

R = kb + s

B = b + s

Let's multiply the second by k.

kB = kb + ks

And now subtract the first equation:

kB - R = kb + ks - kb - s

This simplifies to:

kB - R = (k - 1)s

Solve for s.

s = (kB - R) / (k - 1)

Interesting. We can deduce the amount of specular highlight by doing a weighted sum of the texture value of red and blue, B and R. I was doing this in the old post from long ago, but not with this kind of precision.

So what would we do with that?

Recall the original is the sum of diffuse and specular. Well - just remove the specular!

R = r + s

R - (kB-R)/(k-1) = r

And there is the diffuse value, r, isolated!!

We would do the same for green and blue.

When k is consistent (i.e. when the hue and saturation of the true diffuse color are consistent) then this works perfectly. When hue or saturation changes it does not work perfectly, but if the hue or saturation changes are small, it works well.

I have not had time to really see how it works in practice.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 12:35 AM

Quote - Well, I'm assuming that for generally pink skin, we know the value of k, such that:
r = kb

k?

Ratio?

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 12:43 AM

This is saying the red is some known, fixed multiple of the blue (approximately).

That multiple needs a name so we can work with it. I called it k.

It's a ratio because

k = r/b


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)


Winterclaw posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 1:14 AM

Mmm.

If the extra light screws with the ratio you might have a problem.

Imagine an RGB of 250,150,200.  If the light adds 30 to each value the R portion might be a problem because it'd be capped at 255... your final ratio would be 255,180,230 and I'm not sure what the extra 25 from the red would be doing to the other two.  Now if it instead adds 1/7th of the way to 255 from the base to each... not a problem.  Not sure how this works.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


RobynsVeil posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 2:45 AM

Yay! I so got something.

k is the ratio! As is that 4x - 1.39y equation. Somehow you figured that the red to blue ratio was 4 to 1.39. In that previous thingie. Yes?

If so, things are starting to gel, slightly. Still looking for a Photoshop thingie that tells you what percetage of your image is red. ...or... Ish.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


RobynsVeil posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 3:04 AM

Now, we're moving rather quickly... perhaps a bit too quickly for these old grey cells.

Quote - Well, I'm assuming that for generally pink skin, we know the value of k, such that:
r = kb

This bit... okay. The red component = blue * the ratio of red/blue

Quote - Let's replace r with kb in the first equation. The two equations are then
R = kb + s
B = b + s (true red value, little r, relates to the texture red value, big R)

Following you so far... in English:
"texture red value, big R" = the ratio of red/blue * blue + specular highlight.
"texture blue value, big B" = blue + specular highlight

Quote - Let's multiply the second by k.
kB = kb + ks

...so red/blue ratio * texture Blue value Blue = red/blue ratio * blue component + red/blue ratio * specular highlight.

Yes? If I've deciphered this correctly, then ... what does this do / why? This need clarifying before we go to:

Quote - And now subtract the first equation:
kB - R = kb + ks - kb - s

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 3:29 AM

It doesn't do anything. It has no meaning. It's just algebra. Intermediate versions of an equation are just rearrangments on the way to the goal. They don't necessarily mean anything, although sometimes they do.

The goal is to isolate s.

 


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)


bagginsbill posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 3:31 AM

Do you know what a "roux" is? Nobody eats the roux, but it's the first thing you make on your way to an edible dish in a lot of interesting dishes.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 4:54 AM

Intermediate equation. Gotcha. This is where I generally get lost: the path. I'll just accept the thing as stated and see how this translates to matmatic... and a node set.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


operaguy posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 2:34 PM

 

[click for full]

Rare warm brilliant day on the Irish seacoast.

lit by Mec4D (Cath) "Sunny Day" Light Probe.

::::: Opera :::::

 

 


operaguy posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 5:04 PM

 

[clik for full]

sunny

::::: Opera ::::


SamTherapy posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 6:10 PM

Very interesting thread.  With your face morph, OG, the model looks remarkably like my grand niece.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery


operaguy posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 9:04 PM

 

just thought i'd post a bw.....

 

::::: Opera :::::


operaguy posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 11:39 PM

 

[click for full]

This is V4 with the BB SSS shader via danae. I swaped out the texture map. It is the Lana map from Daz. Light is the "Sunny Day" probe from Mec4D with only one other light for specular.

No postwork. I know there is an issue with the location of the eyelashes, just no time or drive to fix that right now.

Folks, we've got us a pretty powerful little program here for this kind of work.

::::: Opera :::::

P.S. Am I supposed to be using some sort of dome or sphere? I have indirect light turned off.


operaguy posted Tue, 03 January 2012 at 11:46 PM

 

[click for full]

I like to do things like this in postprocessing, push the brightness and contrast until you get a stylization of the render. In this case, the depth from the texture and the shader are still evident. That conveys some power.

:: og ::


mikegg posted Wed, 04 January 2012 at 12:15 PM

The original pitures of the Dublin character are great, but I detect some excess blue around and over the mouth. Is this caused by the low scale in the scatter node? Is it too much translucence in the shader? How would you remove it? I see the other shaders used to modify the original don't seem to have the blue look either.

 

What do you think is causing this and does andyone else see it?

 

Mike

 


RobynsVeil posted Wed, 04 January 2012 at 3:59 PM

If you have sss in occluded mesh shaders (for instance, teeth and gums and such) you risk problems per the docs that came out with the SR1 for P9/PP2012.

According to Bagginsbill, optimal settings for skin include setting scale for scatter at 1.75. If your figure doesn't display that blue cast, you can go lower. That blue cast around the lips appears to be an arbitrary thing: some of my figures display it with scale set at 1, others don't. Mariko is notorious for having it show to some degree even with scale set at 1.75.

Go figure. :glare:

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Winterclaw posted Wed, 04 January 2012 at 11:45 PM

Okay, I  tried BB's method and being the novice I am, somehow I screwed up the blue.  AFAICT, red and green are fine, but blue is off.  Rename the .txt to .mt5 to see.

I know this because red + blue equaled black (red flag) with color add and green plus blue equaled a similar shade of green.  Without knowing any better, it's like the blue has a minimal value of blue and a negitive value of red.  Use the unattached subtract nodes to see what I mean.  I thought I had the math right, but appearently not.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


RobynsVeil posted Thu, 05 January 2012 at 6:30 AM

Looking at this shader of yours, Winterclaw... not really sure what I'm looking at, though. Did you generate this with matmatic?

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Thu, 05 January 2012 at 6:39 AM

I am at a client site and can't help till later.


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)


Winterclaw posted Thu, 05 January 2012 at 9:59 AM

Robyn, no I still have to learn how to use that.  This is still a WIP attempt of me trying to create the base versions.  I still need to make a procedural mask to tell poser where to apply the shaders, but I was leaving that towards later.

 

I made a cleaned up image to make it easier to follow allong.  Color Math 5 and 10 (R and B) are their to to keep only the red and the blue parts respectively of the color map.  Math functions 3 at the bottom (labeled k) is the ratio of red to blue.  r and b (color math and CM6) are supposed to be the post specular values.  r works okay for me, but b doesn't. 

Note green is to the far right of the mat file and follows the same set up.  The problem is that color math 6, b, doesn't combine correctly with R or G. 

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


Winterclaw posted Thu, 05 January 2012 at 10:14 AM

Ok, I just had a thought but I don't know if it'll work.  Assuming I set the nodes up correctly and I really do have R and r, by definition I can create s (specularity from them).  If I used a math function subtract to remove r from R, I should have a mask that will work with blue and green.  Then all I'd have to do is subtract s from B and G without having to create an individual set up for all 3.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


bagginsbill posted Thu, 05 January 2012 at 2:10 PM

Fatal mistake - color math.

 

This is not color math. You want to use a Component node to pull the red channel and another to pull the blue channel - both will give you numbers. Then you do the math with the numbers.

Color math is equivalent to three independent copies of ordinary math, operating on separate data streams. This is why you can't get the red and blue and green to interact - they are in different parts.

Go to the thread Robyn created to discuss despec'ing and look at the original version I posted in 2007. Start from 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)


mikegg posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 1:00 PM

So Robyn, you're saying that the blue cast by the mouth is a byproduct of SR1 and the renders on the vendors page that do not have that blue must  have been done in the original Poser 2012? Too strange. how do you recomend fixing or adjusting for this?

 

I noticed another thread about differences in renders with SR1...somethings happening here but I don't know what it is.

 

Mike


vilters posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 1:39 PM

@ mikegg

No, The blue cast around the mouth is NOT from SR1.

Those bue area's, mostly around eyes and mouth occur when 2 different SSS surfaces are too close together.
It is in the origional PP2012 and in the SR1.

If, and I say, IF you get them, the trick is to only put SSS on the visible surfaces and not on surfaces laying behind.
Or?? Change the camera angle 5° to 10°, mostly they are gone.

Sometimes they are even visible when SSS is on the skin, and SSS is on the clothing.  
Again turn the camera 5° to 10°, and they are gone.

The blue area's become visible under certain combinations of IDL, SSS calculations; and camera angle when 2 SSS surfaces are too close together.

 

Example: If the mouth is closed, do NOT use SSS on the inner mouth parts.

Nothing NEW.
Nothing SR1 generated, it has always been there.

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!


bagginsbill posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 2:16 PM

The confusion about SR1 is this - Smith Micro did not publicly acknowledge the blue-skin problem until the release of SR1. In the updated release, they noted it for the first time.

I noted it in beta before the initial release, but I guess they hoped it would be only a minor problem that I ran into because I'm a guy who pushes Poser rather hard.

But it's coming up in ordinary situations and there isn't much you can do about it other than to note that this is why unbiased renderers are great. Because they have no cheats and approximations, you don't find situations where the cheating reveals itself as a flaw or artifact.

I would love it if the community would embrace an unbiased render engine built into Poser.


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)


operaguy posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 2:36 PM

while i believe I see the "blue effect" in my render just above on this page...

Posted Tue, Jan 3, 2012 11:39 pm

...are you guys seeing it in my render in the OP and the other initial posts on page 1?

::::: Opera :::::


mikegg posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 2:41 PM

Thanks for the clarification from both of you. I misunderstood, but I knew it didn't look right. It could be a pain to go to each internal gums teeth mouth sufrace, but now I understand the problem better. It is a beautiful character and I guess one just has to compensate for the blue tone. Perhaps because of the fair skin tone it is more pronounced.?

 

thanks again, Mike


bagginsbill posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:02 PM

Yes I see it in the first post.


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)


RobynsVeil posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:10 PM

Quote - The confusion about SR1 is this - Smith Micro did not publicly acknowledge the blue-skin problem until the release of SR1. In the updated release, they noted it for the first time.

I noted it in beta before the initial release, but I guess they hoped it would be only a minor problem that I ran into because I'm a guy who pushes Poser rather hard.

But it's coming up in ordinary situations and there isn't much you can do about it other than to note that this is why unbiased renderers are great. Because they have no cheats and approximations, you don't find situations where the cheating reveals itself as a flaw or artifact.

I would love it if the community would embrace an unbiased render engine built into Poser.

I would definitely embrace being able to either chose an external / optional renderer or vote for another one to Firefly, personally. But I understand there are mat-room considerations. Materials would have to be tailored for the new renderer... unless I'm missing something. IOW, a major re-write.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:14 PM

Quote - Intermediate equation. Gotcha. This is where I generally get lost: the path. I'll just accept the thing as stated and see how this translates to matmatic... and a node set.

I posted the matmatic version. You can publish the mt5 for other folk if you like. Gotta go.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2841945&page=2


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)


Eric Walters posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:16 PM

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

 

Quote - > Quote - The confusion about SR1 is this - Smith Micro did not publicly acknowledge the blue-skin problem until the release of SR1. In the updated release, they noted it for the first time.

I noted it in beta before the initial release, but I guess they hoped it would be only a minor problem that I ran into because I'm a guy who pushes Poser rather hard.

But it's coming up in ordinary situations and there isn't much you can do about it other than to note that this is why unbiased renderers are great. Because they have no cheats and approximations, you don't find situations where the cheating reveals itself as a flaw or artifact.

I would love it if the community would embrace an unbiased render engine built into Poser.

I would definitely embrace being able to either chose an external / optional renderer or vote for another one to Firefly, personally. But I understand there are mat-room considerations. Materials would have to be tailored for the new renderer... unless I'm missing something. IOW, a major re-write.



RobynsVeil posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:22 PM

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

 

Quote - > Quote - The confusion about SR1 is this - Smith Micro did not publicly acknowledge the blue-skin problem until the release of SR1. In the updated release, they noted it for the first time.

I noted it in beta before the initial release, but I guess they hoped it would be only a minor problem that I ran into because I'm a guy who pushes Poser rather hard.

But it's coming up in ordinary situations and there isn't much you can do about it other than to note that this is why unbiased renderers are great. Because they have no cheats and approximations, you don't find situations where the cheating reveals itself as a flaw or artifact.

I would love it if the community would embrace an unbiased render engine built into Poser.

I would definitely embrace being able to either chose an external / optional renderer or vote for another one to Firefly, personally. But I understand there are mat-room considerations. Materials would have to be tailored for the new renderer... unless I'm missing something. IOW, a major re-write.

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

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


operaguy posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 3:53 PM

in the initial renders I posted, BB is saying he sees the blue effect around the mouth. I believe I also see it around the eys. Do the rest of you agree?

Now that would be consistent with the post above that says "SSS on adjacent groups" etc., because I bet there is SSS on the "eye_socket" and on the gums/teeth.

I'll attempt a control/experiement post over the weekend.

::::: Opera :::::


bagginsbill posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 4:54 PM

I see it on the eyes too.

I can tell you this as well - I tested embedded an object inside a poser sphere and then running scatter on the sphere. I could not tell where the object was inside. That confirmed what the original paper on this scatter technique said - that no interior geometry would influence the scatter effect.

Apparently, my mistaken assumption was that the test would work the same if the interior object was scatter or not.

What we're seeing now is the interior object or mesh, if it also uses scatter, accidentally influences the scatter of nearby meshes. In a very bad way.


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)


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 8:26 PM

/sigh

This is the shader that comes with a V4 char over at RNDA.  No GC or SSS in this image.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 8:28 PM

And this is my attempt to make it GC compatible and with SSS.  I basically used a slightly modified 240 shader which was a PITA because the vendor's shader isn't VSS friendly by default.  I dunno if this is better or not.  I think I like the first more.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


RobynsVeil posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 8:47 PM

The textures on your second image "pop" more, I think. The first one is a bit more doll-like.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 9:40 PM

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

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


operaguy posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 9:50 PM

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

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

::::: Opera :::::


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:05 PM

This isn't a perfect solution, but I had a thought.  I took the color map and the first thing I did with it was run it through a gain of .55.  That seems to improve the problem (only tweaked the face) some.  Still, when you do things like that you are moving into the more artistic side of things.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


JoePublic posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:21 PM

Some test renders.

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

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


JoePublic posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:22 PM

Same render but with EZSkin shader set to a scatter value of 1.75.

Bleed through is gone.


JoePublic posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:29 PM

Same shader as above but without the Envirosphere and IDL.

Two lights with SSS and GC enabled.


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:32 PM

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

 

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

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


JoePublic posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:34 PM

Same as above but scatter set to 1 instead of 1.75.

Bleedthrough shows up.


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 10:50 PM

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

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


Winterclaw posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 11:04 PM

Couldn't help myself.  Practically the same shader setup different character totally different result in detail IMO.  I guess the important lesson is the right texture maps can make all the difference in the world.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


meatSim posted Fri, 06 January 2012 at 11:29 PM

That looks like vanilla sky yes?

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

 

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

 

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


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 5:49 AM

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

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

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Winterclaw posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 10:29 AM

Quote - That looks like vanilla sky yes?

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

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

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


meatSim posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 11:01 AM

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

 

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

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

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


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 11:01 AM

Everybody - let's not base anything on past knowledge or experiments, as I have now contradicted my earlier tests during beta. I don't know or care what passed before, but SR1 has a problem with scatter and interior occlusion.

Here is a sphere with Skin1-type scatter.

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

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

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

 


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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 11:02 AM

In case you were thinking to blame GC, here is GC off.

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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 11:03 AM

Preset Ketchup-type scatter has the most saturated scatter color. And it has the bluest artifact as well.

 


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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 11:06 AM

Marble scatter has the least saturation, so the occlusion artifact also has the least saturation.

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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 11:10 AM

Individually disabling the following had no effect:

Visible in Raytracing

Casts Shadows

Light Emitter

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

Visible in Camera

Visible


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)


Winterclaw posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 12:44 PM

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

 

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

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


meatSim posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 1:19 PM

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

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


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 2:30 PM

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

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

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

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


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)


operaguy posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 2:44 PM

 

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


operaguy posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 2:46 PM

 

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


vilters posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 2:50 PM

Almost pregnant is NOT pregnant.

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

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

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

I allmost passed. Meaning : I failed.

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

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

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

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

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 2:51 PM

Off topic: Here's another interesting statistical story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why the test is not used.

Startling?


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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 2:54 PM

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


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)


Eric Walters posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 3:07 PM

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

 

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

 

Quote - > Quote -

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



Winterclaw posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 3:16 PM

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

 

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

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 3:42 PM

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

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

That is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that:

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

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

 


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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 3:52 PM

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

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

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


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)


operaguy posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 5:50 PM

 

[blue pulled out, click for full]

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

Post production.

::::: Opera :::::


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 6:25 PM

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

Only half? 😉

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


RobynsVeil posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 6:38 PM

Quote - ... I'm saying that:

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

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

Which explains the persistent cast around the lips:

sss

Still there. Scatter from internal structures shaders removed.

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 8:38 PM

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

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


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)


bagginsbill posted Sat, 07 January 2012 at 8:42 PM

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

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


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)


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 9:00 AM

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

What's it worth to you? grin


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)


operaguy posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 9:20 AM

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


RobynsVeil posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 2:27 PM

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

What's it worth to you? grin

I'll have your children?

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

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 2:41 PM

OK before I publish, I want to get the critiques out of the way. The first "solution" I did resulted in losing some of the super-translucence that was the point of using a low scale. I think I have it adjusted right now, but I want opinions first before I show a technique that may be rejected in just a few moments.

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

So.

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

 


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)


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 2:42 PM

And now fixed. Still looks like Scale = .9, but has the color it should have.

Thoughts? Good enough?

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


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)


richardson posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 2:49 PM

Thoughts? Good enough?

Yep. No more 5 PM shadow


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 2:55 PM

For future reference/discussion, let's call this the "Baggins Max Scatter Trick".

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

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

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

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

You must add three nodes.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 


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)


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 3:04 PM

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


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)


richardson posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 3:09 PM

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


Anthanasius posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 3:39 PM

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

 

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

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


Anthanasius posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 3:41 PM

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

 

I have my answer ;)

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 4:03 PM

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

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

 


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)


RobynsVeil posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 4:59 PM

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

Thanks, BB... 😄

Monterey/Mint21.x/Win10 - Blender3.x - PP11.3(cm) - Musescore3.6.2

Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehen
[it is clear that humans have contempt for that which they do not understand] 

Metaphor of Chooks


Snarlygribbly posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 6:19 PM

Attached Link: EZSkin v1.6.0

If anybody wants to try this idea out in EZSkin I've added these nodes into v1.6

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

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

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

Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/


JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 7:54 PM

Hmmm, it helps...somewhat.

While the blueing of the eyes, ears, nose and lips is definitely reduced, I still see a lot more blue around the mouth than I see with keeping scatter size at 1.5.

The only difference in the skin shader I use is that I set saturation in the first HSV node to 1.05 instead of 1.

Otherwise it's just as EZSkin generated it.

First pic is the original (Scatter size 1.5, saturation 1.05)


JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 7:55 PM

Same skin shader with scatter size reduced to 0.8.

JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 7:57 PM

And here with the modifications straight out of the new EZSkin, but saturation re-set to 1.05.

Most blue is gone but it's still quite noticeable around the mouth.


Eric Walters posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 8:06 PM

 Good on ya BB! I've not run into the "blues" myself- being a fan ot the scale 1+ club. But this can be used on any number of surfaces to correct the artefact!



JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 8:08 PM

I also noticed that at least for the (3rd Gen DAZ meshes) nostril material zone, that there is a difference wether the occluded material has scatter applied to or not.

I'll run some tests now while keeping saturation to 1 to see if there is any difference. (I can just as well simply raise the saturation of the original texture a bit instead of messing with the HSV node).


JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 8:25 PM

Nope, no difference. Blueing is still noticeable around the mouth. :-(


bagginsbill posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 9:07 PM

I was adjusting with scatter at .6, Joe, and you're using .9. As I said, the HSV Value on the second scatter may need tweaking. If you're dealing with scatter at .9, that means the value has to be higher. The reason has to do with another aspect of scatter. If scatter distance is long (low scale) that means more reflection happens inside than right at the surface. Thus, the surface is darker. Similarly if you raise the scale, then less reflection happens inside and more happens at the surface.

We're trying to get a matched pair of scale = .6 to go with scale = 2, and use the same factors with .9 and 2 - it isn't going to work. Scale .9 is brighter than scale .6. So you can't get the masking correction effect unless you tweak the value of the one that is scale=2.

I also don't know if scale=2 is the best choice in all cases. I really only did the one case and then published the tactic so you guys can try other scenarios.

Note - I used .6 as my test case because that was the scale of the new Dublin texture. A couple people claimed, in error, that it was .85. It was .6. The texture detail was .85, not the scale.

There's no end to confusion around here.


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)


JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 9:48 PM

Thanks for the reply, BB.

Here I set the scatter to 06.

I think I still can see some blueness like I saw with 09.


JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 9:48 PM

Here once again the original shader using 1.5

JoePublic posted Sun, 08 January 2012 at 9:50 PM

But now the modified scatter 06 shader with HSV saturation set to 1.1 instead of 1.05.

I think I can live with that result. :-)

I'll run more tests tweaking both settings. But it's definitely heading into the right direction.

Thank you for coming up with a solution so quickly.


lkendall posted Mon, 09 January 2012 at 2:57 PM

I notice that the Scale channel on the Scatter node has a plug-in. If one were going to experiment with a "scale-map," what would it look like (what - black or white - would be a higher scale value or a lower scale value)?

lmk

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


Anthanasius posted Mon, 09 January 2012 at 3:36 PM

I've tried this but ...

Put the value to 1 and plug a map, the white stay to 1 not to 1.5 or 2.

 

Génération mobiles Le Forum / Le Site

 


bagginsbill posted Mon, 09 January 2012 at 6:55 PM

LK,

If you were to use a map untransformed (no math nodes adjusting it) then obviously you have only the numbers to work with, multiplied by whatever you type into scale.

A map can create values between 0 and 1, inclusive. Black is 0. White is 1.

Connect that to any number parameter and the value, Pv, of the parameter modifies the node, N, as follows:

Pv * N

Simple multiplication.

So with an incoming map that is 0 to 1, multiplied by whatever you put in the scale, you will have Black = 0, and White = Pv.

If you plug a map directly into a scale with Pv=1.5, for example, then the map value of 255 would mean 1.5 scale. A map value (assuming linear gamma=1) of 200/255 would be 200/255 * 1.5 = 1.176. A map value of 0 would still be 0 because 0 times anything is still 0.

If, on the other hand, you do additional math between the map and the Scatter node, then you can make it be anything you want.

Consider if you insert a Math:Add node, with both Value_1 and Value_2 = 1, and you plug the map into one of those. Then you use this to plug into Scatter.Scale. What is that?

Well the map is [0, 1]. Then the Math:Add node is [0, 1] + 1, giving [1, 2]. The map now means black=1, and white = 2.

If you plugged that into Scatter.Scale, with the parameter value Pv = 1.25, then black (1) is multiplied with 1.25, giving 1.25, and white (2) is multiplied with 1.25 giving 2.5.

See how that works?

It's simple arithmetic. You can transform the black value and white value to anything and then it is multiplied with the parameter value.

You want black = .2 and white = 7?

Then make a Math:Add Value_1 = .2, Value_2 = 6.8 and plug the map into Value_2. This node now converts the map to the range .2 to 7. You could then plug that directly into Scatter.Scale, with Pv = 1 and you'd have scale controlled from .2 to 7 by the map.

There is no end to the combinations you can make.


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)


Eric Walters posted Fri, 27 January 2012 at 12:52 PM

 I lost this thread for awhile- I think the term I want is "bump" "max scatter trick" search on google only came up with a forum called Pixel Nook.



Faery_Light posted Tue, 31 January 2012 at 7:34 AM

Been missing out on all this lately.

re--bookmarking. :)


Let me introduce you to my multiple personalities. :)
     BluEcho...Faery_Light...Faery_Souls.


Snarlygribbly posted Tue, 31 January 2012 at 7:57 AM

> Quote - Been missing out on all this lately. > > re--bookmarking. :)

Things will get easier soon. The problem with the unwanted blue tinting of skin when using SSS will  soon go away and clever workarounds like the Baggins Max Scatter Trick (BMST) will no longer be needed.

See the difference in the attached pic. The top image is a render made using EZSkin v1.6.1 without the BMST. The lower image is from a new version of EZSkin (v1.6.4), still not using the BMST. There is a significant improvement.

The updated EZSkin will be made available when the next update is made to Poser, whenever that may be.

In the meantime, SM beta testers can PM me if they'd like to try out the updated EZSkin.

Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/


lkendall posted Tue, 31 January 2012 at 9:20 AM

I will wait patiently, I will wait patiently, I will wait patiently......

Heck, I want it NOW.

Thanks for the heads up on this SG!

lmk

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


MC3D posted Sun, 05 February 2012 at 5:10 AM

if you look at my gallery i made several different sss images

 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=729527

 

there are a lot of options if you use the right light.


MistyLaraCarrara posted Tue, 07 February 2012 at 10:18 AM

this is the texture that came with WMV4.

for fun, i changed the scatter nodes option from Skin to Cream and detail to 2.0 

😄



♥ My Gallery Albums    ♥   My YT   ♥   Party in the CarrarArtists Forum  ♪♪ 10 years of Carrara forum ♥ My FreeStuff


MistyLaraCarrara posted Tue, 07 February 2012 at 10:19 AM

for this one, i set the scatter option to Apple, and lips to Ketchup.

was sort of hoping for an Orion Dancing Girl  -tee hee



♥ My Gallery Albums    ♥   My YT   ♥   Party in the CarrarArtists Forum  ♪♪ 10 years of Carrara forum ♥ My FreeStuff