Believable3D opened this issue on Jan 01, 2014 · 86 posts
Believable3D posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 5:32 PM
Of course the scenes cannot be fully identical by the nature of the case. The Poser scene has one spotlight to the fore and an illuminated plane off to the left. The Lux scene uses two of Reality's mesh lights, positioned similarly. I played with various Lux settings, including camera Film Response in order to get reasonably close to the same colour range. No postwork, obviously.
Click to view full size.
FWIW.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
PhilC posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 6:13 PM
How long did each take to render? I appreciate that Lux just keeps going, how long to get the result you show here?
Thanks.
WandW posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 7:24 PM
I like the reality image better, even though it is overlit. Compare the hair near the left ear and the left collar ( you might have simply left Remove Backfaceing Polys checked) However, the teeth on the Poser render are certainly better...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of bagginsbill:
"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 7:47 PM
Hello.
Thank you for doing the test and posting your result.
The Reality/Lux image is really not showing what the combination can do. This is, of course, because of the limited experience with the programs. You just need to give yourself more time and become familiar with the Reality materials :).
Here is an example by an expert user:
While the example was created using DAZ Studio, the result shows the level of realism acheievable. Also keep in mind that the version of Reality used is 2, not 3.
Below there is an image made with Reality 2, by Elianeck.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 7:50 PM
Phil: The Poser render took just over 55 minutes in Queue Manager and mostly rendered after I went to bed. (Keep in mind this is 64 bit on a machine with 32GB of RAM, although I'm not sure how much RAM QM actually uses.) I can't say exactly with Lux, because I was doing a few things simultaneously and off and on. I'd venture to guess that image is at least a couple hours (not using GPU). It's a little under 800 S/p, so obviously could go on longer and still improve. But I doubt it will ever look as good as the Poser render.
WandW: Yes, I generally remove backfacing polys in Poser, but aside from that Lux does do a better job with handling the way clothing relates to the body. That said ... I can't agree with you in preferring the Lux render in this case. Arguably, the eyes are more realistic, but it's close. And the hair ... other than the backfacing issue, the Poser render is worlds better.
Again, though, I'm a Reality/Lux novice. And I also suspect that Lux will shine better on outdoor scenes. The other thing is that Lux probably improves dramatically the better the texture is, whereas Poser has ways of hiding a poor texture (so long as it doesn't have a lot of baked-in specular). Things might shift if I used a better texture. (This texture is one I composited and edited from merchant resources.)
Either way, I like having both options. Reality will be more viable for me once it gets support for dynamic hair, as I generally avoid the transmapped stuff.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Believable3D posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 7:53 PM
Thanks, Paolo. Please don't think I'm knocking either Lux or Reality. I've seen some very good results from others, and given how little I've used it, I think I should be satisfied with what I can do with it at this stage.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 8:54 PM
Not at all, I posted the images as an incouragement :)
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 01 January 2014 at 9:13 PM
One thing I need to address about the lighting. Lux is equally suited for indoor or outdoor lighting. The vast majority if my renders are with mesh lights, as I rarely use the sunlight.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
DustRider posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 12:10 AM
Believable#D - It looks like one of the big differences between the two images is the shaders (and the lighting is different too). The Poser image looks like it is usiing a very mild SSS, and the Reality/Lux image looks like it's using a mat material for the skin rather than a skin material? Maybe there is some unusual color being assigned to the Surface Color and Interior Color for SSS in Reality.
I've always gotten much better "out of the box" shaders and renders with Reality than this. Maybe it's because I use the simple version of mats/shaders (if possible) when using Reality/Lux. Reality 3 does a fantastic job of taking P4 style shaders(no SSS, no complex node tricks), and converting them to skin shaders that often need very little tweaking to look really good.
Since your new to Lux I thought this might help too (if you don't already know it). To gain more control over the lighting in Lux, for the tone mapping kernel it's typically prefered to use Linear rather than the default Auto Linear. This gives you the ability to adjust the Film ISO, Shutter, F-stop, and Gamma interactively during your render, just like you would adjust a real camera for optimizing the film exposure under the given lighting conditions.
Hope this all make sense and helps a little.
__________________________________________________________
My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......
Believable3D posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 12:23 AM
No, DustRider, I have Skin materials assigned in Reality 3. And yes, I was using Linear tone mapping. I did read enough of Paolo's manual to learn that much. :)
Thanks for your comments!
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
RorrKonn posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 1:20 AM
I'm not for or against app's, render engines, etc etc.I'm just a modeler
but Dang now that I think about it I have a lot of different render engines.
I'm not sure how = a compare render engines could be.
unless ya could use same shaders lights etc etc.
different render engines get different results.
& 2D ,fillters etc etc.
============================================================
The
Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance
meatSim posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 1:31 AM
Well not to dispute your point, as I have seen some great things out of reality, but this side by side is almost a bad example the other way... ie the 'before' picture is extremely basic... such that if poser started pissing that out I'd abort the render after the first line!
There is some value in to what the OP is trying to do though. I suspect for it to have its intended effect you'd need to know both programs well enough to get the very best out of them. Its cool to see comparisons though.
Quote - Hello.
Thank you for doing the test and posting your result.
The Reality/Lux image is really not showing what the combination can do. This is, of course, because of the limited experience with the programs. You just need to give yourself more time and become familiar with the Reality materials :).
Here is an example by an expert user:
While the example was created using DAZ Studio, the result shows the level of realism acheievable. Also keep in mind that the version of Reality used is 2, not 3.
Below there is an image made with Reality 2, by Elianeck.
Cheers.
monkeycloud posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 1:44 AM
Quote - Well not to dispute your point, as I have seen some great things out of reality, but this side by side is almost a bad example the other way... ie the 'before' picture is extremely basic... such that if poser started pissing that out I'd abort the render after the first line!
There is some value in to what the OP is trying to do though. I suspect for it to have its intended effect you'd need to know both programs well enough to get the very best out of them. Its cool to see comparisons though.
Quote - Hello.
Thank you for doing the test and posting your result.
The Reality/Lux image is really not showing what the combination can do. This is, of course, because of the limited experience with the programs. You just need to give yourself more time and become familiar with the Reality materials :).
Here is an example by an expert user:
While the example was created using DAZ Studio, the result shows the level of realism acheievable. Also keep in mind that the version of Reality used is 2, not 3.
Below there is an image made with Reality 2, by Elianeck.
Cheers.
Yes, sorry Paolo... but Poser's native Firefly can much more closely match the Lux / Reality result shown above, I'd say... the Reality render looks great though, of course ;-)
Both render engines take some knowledge to get the best from, I guess. I'm still at the point of being much more proficient / in my comfort zone with Firefly, personally. Playing around with Reality though...
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 8:48 AM
The "before/after" image was presented to show the portrait made with Reality. It stands on its own as a great example of realism. As I do everything by myself, development and support, I have to be quick and link to the material that I have, I don't have much time to edit the images.
Hope that this explains the post a little better.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
RorrKonn posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 10:00 AM
Cool Galleries ,No doubt Reality is a Killer Render Engine.
============================================================
The
Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance
monkeycloud posted Thu, 02 January 2014 at 10:10 AM
Yeah, no doubt, if unadulterated realism is your aim, then Reality and Lux will get you further down that path, ultimately... since Lux is a more physically accurate type of render engine, fundamentally. But it needs to be mastered, like anything else. A better camera doesn't a professional photographer make...
...although the right equipment can help a lot!
I am always thrilled to see how much it is possible to crank out of Firefly though! ;-)
It's Firefly's versatility that keeps me very much addicted to it...
DarkElegance posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 12:43 AM
reality can give you just ...boggling results.
Elianeck is one example. To see what it is capable of take a walk down her gallery. Seriously its amazing.
But with that said..my -only- issue with reality is the time factor. I have a 64bit system with a fair amount of ram and it still takes -ages- to give me anything remotely usable.
If time wasnt a factor I would use it regularly. As it is now...I havent had a single work come out of it that I can use. Which is a shame as I -know- it does amazing things.
Its one engine well worth the money.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Pret-a-3D posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 6:38 AM
64 bits and RAM are just about making it possible to fit a given scene in memory. By themselves they do nothing for speed. The number of CPU cores is what affects speed. With one or two cores it takes a long time to render anything. With 4 or 8 cores the times are substanstially lower.
When using LuxRender I found that it takes a lot less time to adjust the scene's lighting. So the final balance of time, for me, is actually in favor or LuxRender.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
DustRider posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 1:06 PM
Quote - When using LuxRender I found that it takes a lot less time to adjust the scene's lighting. So the final balance of time, for me, is actually in favor or LuxRender.
That's my experience as well. I've always had issues will lighting in Poser, which I freely admit is my own fault. I find lighting in reality/Lux much easier for me. Obviously many people don't have problems creating great lighting in Poser, but I definitely do. Thanks to Reality, I use Poser more now.
__________________________________________________________
My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......
Believable3D posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 1:10 PM
Yes, the lighting is a significant issue. However, I don't really have difficulty with Poser's lighting since I abandoned lightsets. By and large, I know what I want to do with lighting in PP, so it isn't an issue for me. That said, I love the fact that I can adjust things on the fly during render in Lux. There's no question that's a big plus.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
monkeycloud posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 3:48 PM
I've definitely found the new Progressive Mode render option, for Firefly, in PP2014, to be a big help, when setting up lighting and quickly gauging what the final result will come out like, using a fast test render... including for IDL renders.
But, yeah, absolutely... the on-the-fly adjustment in Reality / Lux, is a major attraction there.
Pret-a-3D posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 3:53 PM
I just want to elaborate a little bit more about the lighgting and tradeoff etc.
Obviously it's perfectly possible to create great lighting with non-physical renderers like Firefly, it has been done for years. The deal, though, is that it takes a much larger number of lights than with a physics-based renderer. Even when that is done by an experienced artist. It's just the matter of things.
In Lux, if you want to have reflected light you simply place a plane, set it white glossy and, like in real life, you have a reflector. In Poser or even in other high-end program you might need to simulate it and that requires knowledge of the specific renderer. With Lux it's a matter of using real-life experience, which, IMHO, makes for a simpler approach.
The number of lights necessary is also much smaller. Possibly a quarter of what is needed with a biased renderer.
This is not meant to disparage any software, it's just a statement of fact and it's meant to highlight the savings in time obtained when using LuxRender and, consequently, Reality.
Hope this helps.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
DarkElegance posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 5:54 PM
Quote - 64 bits and RAM are just about making it possible to fit a given scene in memory. By themselves they do nothing for speed. The number of CPU cores is what affects speed. With one or two cores it takes a long time to render anything. With 4 or 8 cores the times are substanstially lower.
When using LuxRender I found that it takes a lot less time to adjust the scene's lighting. So the final balance of time, for me, is actually in favor or LuxRender.
Cheers.
8 cores is what we are running currently.
And it still takes a huge amount of time.
I have played with the settings but....still a rough ride.
THOUGH as I have said, I have seen spectacular results from people using it.
its just the time factor for me.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Pret-a-3D posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 6:47 PM
DarkElegance, if you could quantify what "huge" is in terms of time, image resolution and number of samples then I might be able to address your needs more precisely. While it does take some time to get the images renderered, in my experience the time is not more than with other high-end renderers like Vue's once everything is cranked up to a similar level.
There are several ways rendering can be optimizewd, including the use of the Refine Brush.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 8:07 PM
Quote - ... Obviously it's perfectly possible to create great lighting with non-physical renderers like Firefly, it has been done for years. The deal, though, is that it takes a much larger number of lights than with a physics-based renderer. Even when that is done by an experienced artist. It's just the matter of things.
...
The number of lights necessary is also much smaller. Possibly a quarter of what is needed with a biased renderer.
Sorry, Paolo, this part isn't really true, although it was before the advent of IDL in Poser (and still is for those who don't know how to use it). As noted in my original image comparison above, I only have one actual light in the render, and one illuminated (ambient) plane. Experienced artists are even illuminating outdoor scenes with nothing but a skydome. So the matter of the number of lights is really more about knowing how to get the best out of Poser.
That said, I'm not disagreeing that at its best and used to its fullest, I'm sure the Reality3-LuxRender combo is going to be better than Poser Pro used at its fullest.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
grichter posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 10:25 PM
Quote - DarkElegance, if you could quantify what "huge" is in terms of time, image resolution and number of samples then I might be able to address your needs more precisely. While it does take some time to get the images renderered, in my experience the time is not more than with other high-end renderers like Vue's once everything is cranked up to a similar level.
There are several ways rendering can be optimizewd, including the use of the Refine Brush.
Cheers.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I read where Lux Render could use OpenCL or the GPU's of the graphics card or cards to render, which is suppose to speed things up a lot if you have graphic cards that support OpenCL (That's CL vs GL)
Gary
"Those who lose themselves in a passion lose less than those who lose their passion"
Believable3D posted Sat, 04 January 2014 at 10:36 PM
Yes, Lux supports GPU rendering.
Haven't tried it myself. I don't imagine my 550 Ti is going to be an improvement over my machine's native computing power. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but I do tax my graphics card with a lot of open windows & applications etc as it is, to the degree that my display occasionally stalls for a couple seconds. Someday when I have a superfluity of cash (ha!) I'll upgrade that end of my system, which is the only thing that's really weak.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 8:34 AM
Quote - Sorry, Paolo, this part isn't really true, although it was before the advent of IDL in Poser (and still is for those who don't know how to use it).
That's a good point but I'm not sure that IDL can do whatLux can in terms of light treatment. More testing is necessary.
Thank you for bringing it up.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 8:50 AM
Oh, I'm certainly not claiming that it can do what Lux can do. I'm just saying that used wisely, it can get great results without having a whole bunch of lights.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 9:04 AM
We agree there :)
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
DarkElegance posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 9:36 AM
Quote - DarkElegance, if you could quantify what "huge" is in terms of time, image resolution and number of samples then I might be able to address your needs more precisely. While it does take some time to get the images renderered, in my experience the time is not more than with other high-end renderers like Vue's once everything is cranked up to a similar level.
There are several ways rendering can be optimizewd, including the use of the Refine Brush.
Cheers.
the last one I worked on had one mesh light in it, v4, plain white walls and a floor(floor was flat black). V4 had abit of leather on her. At 24 hours...it was still far to grainy to be of any use. I continued to let it run and after 30+ hours...still no joy.
I did the same scene in poser and was a happy camper in under an hour.(the size was at 6000x5000)
I tried to use Reality for the bot piece I did and ....it just wasnt working. But I did get great results from poser in around 2 hours.
http://www.3dartistonline.com/image/17341/once_upon_a_time
That was poser around 2 hours and no post. That piece I had light artifacts around the top part(around the red lights above the figure) and I posted in RDNA asking about "fireflys" but...was told they werent. To just let it keep rendering. But the light artifacts never went away nor did the grainy image.
That is only my personaly experience. I (again will say) Know it gives great results. I have seen them, one of my favorite artists uses it regularly and the results are boggling....The time frame is just not workable for me. If I could speed it up, I would use it, but....
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
JoePublic posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 9:52 AM
This took my i5 dual-core laptop 5 minutes to render using PP-2014.
Personally, I don't think I'm talented enough to justify the additional time, effort and expense of an unbiased renderer.
I also think, given how substantially flawed almost all Poser figures are, the use of a render engine explicitely made for 100% "un-flawed" rendering is not the wisest artistical choice one could make.
Pret-a-3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 10:03 AM
DarkElegance, 6000x5000 is a massive image and that kind of size will defintely require a lot of time. I never rendered anything near that size. I would suggest something more reasonable while you get your bearing with Lux. Also, at athat size you have probably consumed all your RAM and hit the swap on disk, which will slow things down to a crawl.
Having said that, the robot image that you posted presents no issue to be rendered with Lux. In fact it can gain a lot. Without seen your scene setup, lights etc I can only guess what happened. Often the issues with grain are caused by misplaced lights. Lights must have a clear path to reach the objects. That is the same that is done in photography. In fact the secret of getting great results at good speed in Lux is to light like a photographer.
Unfortunately a lot of 3D artists have been trained to use the unrealistic model of 3D lights where light path is not as well understood as it is in real life. I would suggest to start over with a simple approach in order to develop the practise necessary:
Add one figure to the scene
Add one mesh light, no other lights. If you need to have a light to see the scene make sure that you disable it in Reality
Set the resolution to standard HD video: either 1280x720 or 1920x1080
Render
Start with that setup and then move the Reality mesh light around to get a feel of it works. Try 5 renders with one light only and see how much understanding you get out of it. When you get the hang od it then add a second mesh light. Or a IBL light.
Hope this helps.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Pret-a-3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 10:09 AM
Just to show that Lux can render at a very nice speed here is a video that shows the results that you can get in just a few minutes.
Video: Getting Started with Reality
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
monkeycloud posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 5:19 PM
My main issue / point of concern is probably material setup time, as opposed to render time.
I'm quite used to long render times. The scene below (click to view at full size 3072 pixels wide on DA site) took around 12 hours, maybe a bit more, to complete, with Firefly. This scene is lit with ambient lighting and a couple of point lights (including one placed within the foreground orb). It is rendered "IDL only".
I suppose if Lux took much longer than this sort of 12-24 hour mark though, for the same kind of scene, it could be an issue.
But, initially, it is just the amount of work to set up materials for everything in such as scene that is holding me back from jumping into Reality more.
Don't get me wrong, I have been through and replaced all of the shaders in this scene with BBGlossy2 and other Bagginsbill shaders.
But my workflow is fairly optimised now for doing that. Especially now, using the beta of Snarlygribbly's EZMat add-on.
It's probably just a familiarity thing really... I suppose... and also committing to going through the same sort of process, instead using Reality Studio.
But this is why I am just experimenting with Reality, in small increments for now, I guess...
...once I know it better I'll get an idea of when I might want to use it, for a given scene, and when I'd be better sticking with Firefly.
DarkElegance posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 5:35 PM
Quote - DarkElegance, 6000x5000 is a massive image and that kind of size will defintely require a lot of time. I never rendered anything near that size. I would suggest something more reasonable while you get your bearing with Lux. Also, at athat size you have probably consumed all your RAM and hit the swap on disk, which will slow things down to a crawl.
Having said that, the robot image that you posted presents no issue to be rendered with Lux. In fact it can gain a lot. Without seen your scene setup, lights etc I can only guess what happened. Often the issues with grain are caused by misplaced lights. Lights must have a clear path to reach the objects. That is the same that is done in photography. In fact the secret of getting great results at good speed in Lux is to light like a photographer.
Unfortunately a lot of 3D artists have been trained to use the unrealistic model of 3D lights where light path is not as well understood as it is in real life. I would suggest to start over with a simple approach in order to develop the practise necessary:
Add one figure to the scene
Add one mesh light, no other lights. If you need to have a light to see the scene make sure that you disable it in Reality
Set the resolution to standard HD video: either 1280x720 or 1920x1080
Render
Start with that setup and then move the Reality mesh light around to get a feel of it works. Try 5 renders with one light only and see how much understanding you get out of it. When you get the hang od it then add a second mesh light. Or a IBL light.
Hope this helps.
bot scene originally had a mesh light on the top but that wasnt right as the top parts were blocking the light from the bot, I then used the circular tubing on the upper part as a "light".(you cant see it in the picture but that upper part has a circular tube that runs around it) I actually liked how that looked but it wasnt giving enough light on her face and hands. So I tried tweeking out the lighting by putting a mesh light just above her..but again it wasnt lighting the way I wished.
after many tries I had the "firefly issue " when I tried to use the "red lights" as lights (Just not red) and just about gnawed my lower lip off trying to figure out how to get it to light the way I wanted.
(there was also an issue with reality not wanting to change the materials on the bot which I -still- cant get it to do. it still throws up the error message I posted in RDNA when the piece was in progress)
Trust me, I know reality produces great results, I know materials are SWEET in it. Its the time factor.
When I was playing around with the Bot picture I had tubing(the ones coming from her head) looking more like color glass that was lit. It was lovely.
But.... it just wouldnt work.
I render at that size normally for print. I use to render 3000x3000(or what ever was needed ratio wise) and 300dpi.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Pret-a-3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 5:57 PM
Quote - My main issue / point of concern is probably material setup time, as opposed to render time.
...
Your best approach for scenes is to avoid fancy shaders and scripts that take advantage of Firefly. That's what they are designed for: to use some of the most esotheric and advanced features of Firefly. If you use a different renderer they are out of place.
When you use Reality and LuxRender you gain many of the same benefits for free; just use the standard materials that are associated with the models. If it's a figure that you set up then just use the standard mat files of Poser without SSS. Reality sets its own SSS for there is no need to have complex shaders at the source. In fact you will get excellent results out-of-the-box using the standard Poser shaders.
If you need glass there is no simpler approach than right-clicking on the material in Reality and selecting "Glass". The same is for Metal, Velvet or Cloth.
Start with a new scene and keep it simple. There is much less need to tweak shaders with Reality when you use the approach described above.
Hope this helps.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
monkeycloud posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 6:28 PM
Quote - > Quote - My main issue / point of concern is probably material setup time, as opposed to render time.
...
Your best approach for scenes is to avoid fancy shaders and scripts that take advantage of Firefly. That's what they are designed for: to use some of the most esotheric and advanced features of Firefly. If you use a different renderer they are out of place.
When you use Reality and LuxRender you gain many of the same benefits for free; just use the standard materials that are associated with the models. If it's a figure that you set up then just use the standard mat files of Poser without SSS. Reality sets its own SSS for there is no need to have complex shaders at the source. In fact you will get excellent results out-of-the-box using the standard Poser shaders.
If you need glass there is no simpler approach than right-clicking on the material in Reality and selecting "Glass". The same is for Metal, Velvet or Cloth.
Start with a new scene and keep it simple. There is much less need to tweak shaders with Reality when you use the approach described above.
Hope this helps.
Thanks Paolo
But I do appreciate this difference... i.e. Reality just needs the texture maps (diffuse, bump, etc) and perhaps procedural patterns (if these are assigned in place of, or as well as, an image map).
The set up time I'm referring to is the time it takes to go through each material zone, in Reality Studio, and assign a material there (e.g. glass, metal, velvet, cloth).
This is, in effect, not too different from what I now do in Poser (as all these fancy shaders I am using there are, to a great extent ready-mades and... now with EZ Mat moreso... quick to apply to the base textures).
The time it would take to set up materials in a scene like the one I posted would likely be about the same either way.
But I would have to choose one or other path at the outset... or duplicate effort.
Hence, as I say, I probably just need to gradually familiarise myself with Reality enough so that I can make that choice, of which renderer I am going to choose to use for a given image, upfront, when I have an idea for an image and start to build the scene for it.
Anyway...
...just further to what you said there above, I have a quick question that I hope you don't mind if I interject here...
I take it if my figure has SSS mats (or other complex shaders) in Poser, that I don't have to strip the shader down to just it's texture maps before I work with the scene in Reality? i.e. does Reality Studio ignore any Poser shader nodes it doesn't need, if they are present?
Many thanks
RedPhantom posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 6:47 PM Site Admin
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
Pret-a-3D posted Sun, 05 January 2014 at 8:15 PM
Quote - I take it if my figure has SSS mats (or other complex shaders) in Poser, that I don't have to strip the shader down to just it's texture maps before I work with the scene in Reality? i.e. does Reality Studio ignore any Poser shader nodes it doesn't need, if they are present?
That is correct. Reality knows how to traverse the Poser shader tree and convert all those nodes to the closest useful representation. Using simpler materials simply makes the process slightly faster and takes less memory.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
monkeycloud posted Mon, 06 January 2014 at 2:06 AM
Quote - > Quote - I take it if my figure has SSS mats (or other complex shaders) in Poser, that I don't have to strip the shader down to just it's texture maps before I work with the scene in Reality? i.e. does Reality Studio ignore any Poser shader nodes it doesn't need, if they are present?
That is correct. Reality knows how to traverse the Poser shader tree and convert all those nodes to the closest useful representation. Using simpler materials simply makes the process slightly faster and takes less memory.
Cheers.
Excellent - thanks Paolo :-)
ghostman posted Mon, 06 January 2014 at 5:47 AM
"Dream like you'll live forever. Live like you'll die tomorrow."
DarkElegance posted Mon, 06 January 2014 at 9:42 AM
Quote - Have to say that with enough knowledge on how poser lights and renderer works, you can achive very realistical renders. Nowadays I only use the IDL with ambient lighting.
I LOVE the pillow squish! is that from the new bullet dynamics or cloth dynamics?
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
ghostman posted Tue, 07 January 2014 at 12:30 PM
Quote - > Quote - Have to say that with enough knowledge on how poser lights and renderer works, you can achive very realistical renders. Nowadays I only use the IDL with ambient lighting.
I LOVE the pillow squish! is that from the new bullet dynamics or cloth dynamics?
No. I made the pillow in ZBrush.
"Dream like you'll live forever. Live like you'll die tomorrow."
Believable3D posted Tue, 07 January 2014 at 9:22 PM
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Tue, 07 January 2014 at 11:32 PM
If you need reflection in the eyes then you need something to reflect in them. This is physic-based lighting, reflection maps and other synthetic tricks are not valid anymore. You have to light the scene as a photoghrapher. From the sharp shadow that we see on the face I guess that you are using a spotlight.
Spots cannot create relfections in the eyes because they are infinitesimally small lights. There's nothing to reflect.
Replace the spot with a meshlight, it will give you a much better result. The place another meshlight in front of the character so that it will reflect in the cornea. The cornea should be set to architectural glass with the transmission and the reflection set to pure white.
The following image shows this approach:
Hope this help
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 7:37 AM
Actually, Paolo, I used a meshlight first and things weren't any better. And I always use real reflections. In this scene, I used a spotlight to the right (previously a meshlight) and one very dim meshlight to the left.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 7:39 AM
But to have reflections in the eyes you need to have something in front of them to reflect. If you can provide the full set of materials settings for the parts interested I can help. BTWm, there is a huge difference between spotlights and meshlight so the result cannot be the same.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 8:08 AM
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 8:14 AM
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 8:52 AM
Reality has automatic material setup for most figures used in Poser. I don't know what figure you are using so I can't comment on that. If you provide details then I can help.
In a classic (V4/M4) setup the eye is divided in several materials:
Sclera, which should be Glossy, very reflective
Cornea, which should be Architectural Glass
Iris, Glossy, highly reflective
Pupil, Matte black
Eye surface, Architectural glass
Looking at the skin of your character I can see that the bear is affected by the SSS, which should not. I can only guess that it's not a character recognized by Reality. You can mask the beard by enabling the Hair mask for the face material, whatever that is. Again, not having any detail about the figure I cannot be more precise.
Hope this helps.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 1:45 PM
Thanks. The figure is M4. The info you gave me for the eyes should give me a few things to change, but I don't know remember seeing "architectural glass" as an option in the material settings....
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 1:56 PM
If that's Michael then all the materials are configured by Reality automatically.
architectural is an option all the glass material. If you click on a glass material you will find that there are four kinds of glass that can be selected. Architectural is one of them.
All the details are in the Reality User's Guide.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 1:59 PM
Thanks. That's Michael. Obviously the automatic config is not working so great here, for some reason.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 2:14 PM
Why are you saying thst is not working. Are the materials not set as I described?
Cornea should be set to Glass, automatically. 1_SkinFace should be set to Skin and so on. If the configuration didn't work then both materials would be set to Glossy.
Please let me know.
Thanks.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 7:34 PM
Yeah, I'm saying it's not doing that. When I do an initial export, Reality 3D is setting all the materials (i.e. everything in the scene) to glossy by default.
I've been trying this on a custom character, but Michael 4 is the base. I'll try and see what happens just with M4.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Believable3D posted Wed, 08 January 2014 at 7:37 PM
Okay, I just tried it with default M4, and a quick glance suggests that M4 seems to export okay as you describe. But when I've got complex shaders in the scene, it apparently seems to throw Reality out of whack.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 10:49 AM
You will get betters results by simply using the standard materials for your model. Given the physics-based shaders of Reality and Lux there is no need to use complex shaders in your model.
Make sure that you have a diffuse map, a bump map and, possibly, a specular map, and Reality will do the rest.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 4:11 PM
Thanks. It's too bad that Reality cannot reduce things to that level itself. By this stage in my Poser career, I have a lot of well-developed characters to strip. Does anyone know if there is a script that can accomplish that?
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Snarlygribbly posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 4:28 PM
Quote - Thanks. It's too bad that Reality cannot reduce things to that level itself. By this stage in my Poser career, I have a lot of well-developed characters to strip. Does anyone know if there is a script that can accomplish that?
There will be one in the forthcoming EZMat, designed to simplify shaders to the level where they are useful to unbiased renderers. It will be specifically targetted at Reality and Octane users, and will strip out all the nodes apart from the maps referred to by Paolo which will then be reattached to the PoserSurface in the appropriate places.
Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/
Snarlygribbly posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 4:30 PM
Quote - .... It will be specifically targetted at Reality and Octane users...
And, I suppose, Pose2Lux users :-)
Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 4:34 PM
Sweet! EZMat is looking better and better! What's your timetable looking like right now? Is this going to be a commercial release? (You certainly deserve it....)
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 5:01 PM
Thank you Snarlygribbly.
The fact is that Reality actually traverses all the nodes of the poser shader and converts as much as it's possible.
The issues arise only when using very complex shaders that use esotheric capabilities of Firefly. There is actually no need to strip the shaders in the vast majority of the cases. For example, the image attached, from Syyd's Oxygen, works just fine.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Snarlygribbly posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 5:21 PM
Ah, yes, that shader looks very familiar :-)
The EZSkin shader.
I'm a bit confused about the message you're trying to give here. Earlier in the thread you gave the advice:
Quote - You will get betters results by simply using the standard materials for your model. Given the physics-based shaders of Reality and Lux there is no need to use complex shaders in your model. Make sure that you have a diffuse map, a bump map and, possibly, a specular map, and Reality will do the rest.
So, a utility which ensures the shader is simply using the standard materials and has the stated maps, will give better results?
Or not? The last post suggests that there is no need to strip the shaders and that Reality will cope well with complex shaders anyway, making the earlier advice redundant.
Not trying to pick an argument, you understand - I've been following the thread and thought there was an opportunity for me to help out in a small way. Now I'm just confused :-)
Free stuff @ https://poser.cobrablade.net/
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 5:36 PM
Well, here's what I've learned. If you save a developed character to your Figures library, Reality will not recognize the base figure. It will call the internal name Figure 1 or whatever. I guess that is why it was not assigning the correct materials.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 5:46 PM
I understand how the statements might seem contradictory... but their are not :)
As we all know, Poser shaders can be extremely complex, to an infinite level of nesting. The only way to be able to convert any possible combination of shaders is basically to re-write Firefly, which is clarly not in the scope of something like Reality. It would also require years of man-power and bring the cost of Reality quite high.
What Reality does is to traverse the shader and collect information on the nodes. Some nodes are directly translatable, for example, the Image_Map node. Others require conversions, for example, the procedural noise ones. Other nodes make no sense at all for Reality and Lux, like the Blinn node, and they are ignored.
The issue comes from nodes like Blinn or Phong that receive input from other nodes. Since Blinn and Phong are not replicable, Reality ignores them but it continues to scan their inputs because more data could be used there. What is attached to those node could influence the final result of the Reality shader. I have added many tests to try to catch the largest array of conditions and handle them properly but there are always exceptions.
So, for normally complicated shaders, like your EzSkin, Reality can extract the right information automatically. For others there might be things in there that throw a curve ball and confuse the final result. That's why I said that it's best to use the simple mats. If you are creating a scene from scratch, and you know that you are going to use Reality, then there is no need to use esotheric and complex Poser materials. They will not buy you anything and simply use more memory than necessary. For example, if there is an alternative between SSS mats and non-SSS mats it's best to use the non-SSS alternative. Reality already creates its own SSS materials, indipendently from what Poser specifies.
On the other hand, if there are no alternatives, then using complex shaders can be done with ease, because Reality has been designed to handle them as accurately as it can be. There might be cases when some shaders don't get converted at their best. In that case the best thing is to let me know. In that way I can obtain the product, check how it translates in Reality and possibly modify the program to handle that case better. I routinely expand the capabilities of Reality to handle more and more combinations.
Like in many fields of art we must be midful of what we do and how we do it.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 5:47 PM
Quote - Well, here's what I've learned. If you save a developed character to your Figures library, Reality will not recognize the base figure. It will call the internal name Figure 1 or whatever.
That is not correct. The name is given by Poser, Reality does not name the objects in the scene.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
DarkElegance posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 6:03 PM
Quote - > Quote - Thanks. It's too bad that Reality cannot reduce things to that level itself. By this stage in my Poser career, I have a lot of well-developed characters to strip. Does anyone know if there is a script that can accomplish that?
There will be one in the forthcoming EZMat, designed to simplify shaders to the level where they are useful to unbiased renderers. It will be specifically targetted at Reality and Octane users, and will strip out all the nodes apart from the maps referred to by Paolo which will then be reattached to the PoserSurface in the appropriate places.
@.@ ooooOOO now your just teasing! EZmat just keeps sounding better and better. Then again that glass shader with it alone would make it well worth it. Much less everything else with it!
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 8:31 PM
Quote - That is not correct. The name is given by Poser, Reality does not name the objects in the scene.
Whatever the case, the point is that Reality will not recognize M4 if he is called from the Figures library. That's a significant datum to be aware of.
My current render tells me what Reality > Lux can & will do, although it's even more clear than even with high quality Poser renders that textures with any specular and shadows in the image map will look like a disaster (which is as it should be) when rendered properly in Lux. So this particular render will not look good, as the vendor used photograph-based colour maps. But at least now I know where I'm at and should be able to get good results once I sort carefully through my texture sets.
One question in this light, however. Will turning down Diffuse_Value in Poser weaken the effect when ported over to Reality?
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 8:43 PM
Quote - Whatever the case, the point is that Reality will not recognize M4 if he is called from the Figures library. That's a significant datum to be aware of.
Nope, I have several figures in the Library and they are recognized correctly. There is something else going on.
Quote - My current render tells me what Reality > Lux can & will do, although it's even more clear than even with high quality Poser renders that textures with any specular and shadows in the image map will look like a disaster (which is as it should be) when rendered properly in Lux.
Are you referring to eyes with the reflections baked in? Those should be avoided in Poser as well, as the lighting will rarely match them. I know that a lot of images maps are made in that way, and that's unfortunate. The hardest problem is with backed-in highlights for hair textures. Those are absolutely the pits.
Quote - One question in this light, however. Will turning down Diffuse_Value in Poser weaken the effect when ported over to Reality?
That will lower the gain for the texture, basically making it dimmer. I would not suggest to use it. It's supported but only for some exceptional cases.
Hope this helps.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 9:01 PM
Quote - > Quote - Whatever the case, the point is that Reality will not recognize M4 if he is called from the Figures library. That's a significant datum to be aware of.
Nope, I have several figures in the Library and they are recognized correctly. There is something else going on.
Explain me this, then. I stripped my character down to the bare maps, and it still came up in Reality with Glossy on everything. (And yes, not only did I rescan; I created an entire new scene file.) Then I saved out the Materials and morphs and loaded them onto a freshly loaded M4 and tried again. Exported just as Reality is supposed to do.
Quote - Are you referring to eyes with the reflections baked in?
No, I had already worked over the eyes of this set. I'm talking about skin. Because the texture was made from photos, it already has highlights and shadows in it. If I'm going to use Lux, I'm going to have to do a careful sort through my texture sets. I like a lot of detail in my sets, but obviously not detail that includes highlights and shadows.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 9:19 PM
To clarify again, I'm talking about a custom M4-based character that the user saves to the Figures library. Obviously Reality recognizes Michael 4 loaded from the DAZ Figures folder.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
DustRider posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 9:52 PM
Quote - Whatever the case, the point is that Reality will not recognize M4 if he is called from the Figures library. That's a significant datum to be aware of.
Quote - Nope, I have several figures in the Library and they are recognized correctly. There is something else going on.
I just tried loading different figures from the figure library with both M4 and V4, they are identified properly by Reality as "Michael 4" or Victoria4. I'm not even close to a Poser guru, but it looks like there may be a problem with how your M4(s?) is being saved, or maybe a problem with the cr2?
Does your cr2 reference an alternate geometry file (.obj) other than "blMilMan_m4b.obj"? If so, that may be what is causing Reality to miss-identify it as "figure 1"
__________________________________________________________
My Rendo Gallery ........ My DAZ3D Gallery ........... My DA Gallery ......
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 9:58 PM
Thank you DustRider.
Just to shed some light, Reality does not look at the internal name, "Figure 1" or such; it looks at the geometry name, because that is unique among all instances of M4, in this case, and uniquely identifies the base model. So, you were right about pointing to the geometry file but it's not the internal name that is used for the material conversion.
Hope this helps.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 9:59 PM
BTW, all these items can be clearly seen if we click on the figure name in Reality, instead of clicking on one of its materials. The geometry file name is clearly labelled.
In the case of M4 it has to be blMilMan_m4b.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 10:06 PM
The geometry is unchanged.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 10:09 PM
I dunno. I guess it could possibly an extremely over-the-top caching issue, although still doesn't explain why it all exported as glossy in the first place. The fact that it exports fine when I do a fresh load of M4 and then load the morphs and textures from there would seem to point in the direction of Reality struggling to see that the CR2 is based on Michael 4. So maybe that's not the case, but I haven't seen a reasonable alternative explanation.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 10:12 PM
Believable3D, let's postpone this discussion after the 3.1 update comes out. There might be issues in some of the materials that you have in the stored presets that cause the internal conversion to stop. I have found a couple of those issues and solved them in 3.1. I'm testing the final parts of it and I expect to release it in a few days.
At this point it's better to see if the issue persists after the update instead of trying to fix something that is already fixed.
Thank you for your patience.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
Believable3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 10:16 PM
Thanks, Paolo, sounds good.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
RorrKonn posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 11:00 PM
Anyways I would have thought vector maps or normal maps would be wanted ?
ah ,no ,I don't know much about any Poser render engine.
============================================================
The
Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance
Pret-a-3D posted Thu, 09 January 2014 at 11:35 PM
Normal maps are defintely helpful and supported by Reality.
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com
hornet3d posted Fri, 10 January 2014 at 4:07 AM
In Reallity I set the Cornea to arch glass, the diffuse and specular color to 255 255 255 and make sure the thin film thickness and the thin film IOR are at 0. with no bump map. The iris and pupil set the specular to 20 20 20 20 with glossiness to 9200 up to 9600.
Above is what the result, and I can adjust the size and position of the hightlight by adjusting the meshlight.
I use Poser 13 on Windows 11 - For Scene set up I use a Geekcom A5 - Ryzen 9 5900HX, with 64 gig ram and 3 TB storage, mini PC with final rendering done on normal sized desktop using an AMD Ryzen Threadipper 1950X CPU, Corsair Hydro H100i CPU cooler, 3XS EVGA GTX 1080i SC with 11g Ram, 4 X 16gig Corsair DDR4 Ram and a Corsair RM 100 PSU . The desktop is in a remote location with rendering done via Queue Manager which gives me a clearer desktop and quieter computer room.
DarkElegance posted Fri, 10 January 2014 at 5:49 AM
Quote - I dunno. I guess it could possibly an extremely over-the-top caching issue, although still doesn't explain why it all exported as glossy in the first place. The fact that it exports fine when I do a fresh load of M4 and then load the morphs and textures from there would seem to point in the direction of Reality struggling to see that the CR2 is based on Michael 4. So maybe that's not the case, but I haven't seen a reasonable alternative explanation.
I just tried with my "prefered state" V4 that loads when poser opens. She has never had a texture on her, has no maps on her(when I loaded her originally from the library I used the MAT setting that is blank) I opened reality and it was Skin, glossy(eyebrows, lips) skin skin..etc till eyes then glossy, glass, glossy....BUT if I clicked a SSS texture set on her then opened reality...she did what Reality3d is saying. When I took her then into reality she went GLOSSY. all settings to glossy.
(to be fair I havent installed the last update for reality I got notified of)
But (at least on my end) you have to literally have NO maps on V4(so perhaps M4 as well) for it to work correctly. Just color the figure(beigh for skin, pinkish for lips, bluish for eyes etc) for it to work.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
trepleen posted Wed, 15 January 2014 at 7:59 AM
Quote - Here is an example by an expert user:
The left image needs a point light with the distance reduced to accurately compete with the right hand image. The image on the left does not have the same material setup as the right hand side when it comes to specular.
The guy who is promoting reality is obviously biased and one sided. It's possible to make the left image look like the right in poser pro 2012. Just my 2 cents.
Believable3D posted Wed, 15 January 2014 at 8:38 AM
He said above he was posting for the sake of the Reality image, not for the DAZ render on the left.
I don't think you'll get exactly the same results in Poser, but certainly a lot better than the one above, as a look at numerous galleries, including my own, will attest.
______________
Hardware: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X/MSI MAG570 Tomahawk X570/Zotac Geforce GTX 1650 Super 4GB/32GB OLOy RAM
Software: Windows 10 Professional/Poser Pro 11/Photoshop/Postworkshop 3
Pret-a-3D posted Wed, 15 January 2014 at 9:00 AM
There is another point to the "before and after" image that I posted, and that is the amount of effort necessary to get good results. Reality is about getting the highest level of realism with little effort. As lights behave like real lights, the lighting of a scene is much simpler and predictable
Materials have types so they are easier to setup and customize. So, it's a matter of efficiency. Sure you can get decently realistic results with 3Delight and Firefly but they require much more work and an intimate knowledge of the idiosyncharsies of the renderer.
I wrote Reality because I was disattisfied with the unrealistic way 3D renderers use light, nowhere near real light, and materials. There are things that no biased renderer can actually simulate. For example, LuxRender calculates the amount of absorption of the light traversing a volume, based on the thickness of the volume. The light coming out of a piece of glass, for example, is weaker and tinted based on the color of the glass and its thickness. That brings a subtlety that is not available with biased renderers like Firefly, no matter how we work on it
Lastly, let's look at the work of Eli, aka ArtXtreme. If you look at his gallery you will see several pieces that are quite impressive. He is quite the skilled artist. He can definitely spend hours and hour tweaking the Studio shaders to get some decent results. The point is: why? Why do we have to micromanage a biased renderer when we can get bettter results with the simple application of the appropriate material?
Cheers.
Paolo
https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+:
https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The
Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com