Forgive me if this has been asked before but I'm trying something out in using Normal Maps in Poser. Since I'm having a heck of a time doing bump maps. Has anyone made an attempt at it and where to place it in the materials?

Just thought I ask.

Thanks.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

There are several programs which can create normal maps from diffuse texture, some freeware and others not. GIMP has a plugin which is easy to use, I believe Blender might be capable of doing it also, although there is a steep learning curve. Materialize is another free software which can create several different type maps including normal maps. ShaderMap is another program which can also create multiple maps although it is not free but modestly priced. I believe they might be offering a free version. And there is an online site which can convert your maps and allow you to save the results to your hard drive, also free (https://cpetry.github.io/NormalMap-Online/). Those that I mentioned are programs that come to mind, however, there are much more available if you conduct a search.
In the Material Room, if you use the PoserSurface panel, you connect your normal map to the Gradient_Mode Node and use the Tangent Space Normal Map setting. One the PhysicalSurface panel, you use the connecting node name NormalMap.

Thanks hborre, for that info. I have GIMP which I have been following a tut on how to do Bump, Spec and others to the letter. I have tried Materialize and generated a normal map... so I'm familiar with those mentioned. The thing is, I just did a texture map from scratch and wanted to try other things besides going for the bump and specular map.

You are the most helpful.

JB

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Try this at github normal map generator free and easy. Link should be allowed. It isn't to a competing store.

I would advise you to take a look at XNormal.

This program calculates a normal map from two 3d models. You take one model, put it into Blender (for example), make it high-poly and sculpt the hell out of it. You load both the original and the sculptes model into XNormal (AFAIK they don't need to have the same geometry) and you will get the differences as a normal map.

If you apply this normal map to your (original) model, it will look very much like the sculpted one.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

.... from a slow learner ... Can someone give a simple explanation of what a normal map does, as opposed to specular, trans, bump and displacement. Thank you

operaguy posted at 2:10PM Mon, 11 March 2019 - #4347877

.... from a slow learner ... Can someone give a simple explanation of what a normal map does, as opposed to specular, trans, bump and displacement. Thank you

Seconded!

K

Have a look at the Polycount wiki http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/Normal_map (old but still good info).

So my understanding is that a normal map stores direction information for each pixel whereas a bump map stores height information for each pixel (height maps can be used for either bump or displacement depending on how they are connected in the material).

In practice then they add relief detail without changing the geometry. Bump maps are far easier to create and manipulate however as normal maps are essentially code - if you're not sure how they work, best to stick with bump.

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

How bright a surface appears in a render is determined by its angle to the light. A surface pointing directly at a light will receive more light energy than a surface turned away. The angle of a surface is stored as the normal vector, each face of a mesh has a normal and without any mapping the render engine will use this to calculate the output pixel intensity.

Bump and normal maps both generate detail by modifying the base normal of a surface using a uv mapped bitmap that overlays the base mesh. This allows the render engine to calculate a unique normal for each pixel of the bitmap giving the impression of higher res detail. The difference between the two is a bump map contains a height value that the render engine uses to modify the base normal where as the normal map contains a vector (XYZ = RGB) baked in when the map was generated.
Normal maps require software to generate, as already mentioned they are useful for transferring detail from a high res model to a lower res model. They are also specific to the mesh they were generated on, applying a NM from one figure to another can produce strange results.

For Firefly the level of detail may be dependent on the shading rate as textures are averaged across a micro-polygon. Try reducing the shade rate if the bump/NM looks lower res than expected.

Bump and Normal maps work on both diffuse and specular components of light unlike specular maps.

Displacement maps work by modifying the base mesh. Firefly breaks up the base mesh into micro-polygons before applying the displacement map so produce much finer details than Superfly.

Applying Normal maps there are at least two different formats, OpenGL and DirectX, they differ in the Z direction, if you find the relief is inverted it could be the wrong format. I use OpenGL which appears to work ok. Remember to set GC = 1 when applying the texture map.

Thank you Ironsoul, that was clear and incisive. And thanks for the link caisson, I will pursue it.

I think I did something while trying to make a bump map (heightmap - which is an Achilles' Heel with me), and applied it with a Normal map through Materialize, and I believe I'm coming up with something. Liking the results so far. Thanks, guys for all your help.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

jartz that looks excellent. I hope you'll post more of your process.

Here's where I'm at with bump maps and SSS. Skin maps "Lana" elite from DAZ

Thanks operaguy. I'd love to share with what knowledge I have, I'm still in learning stage. It's making skin bump maps that always throw me off a bit. As I stated on my last post, I tried to create a face texture (e.g.) and converted into a desaturated black and white map, which comes out so light. So I had to go to Brightness and Contrast in Corel PhotoPaint or Gimp, then duplicate to create the white areas (which is tricky, for me) and use Difference to the layer. There I have my map. Then next, I go to Materialize and use the Diffuse first, then the Height Map (of what I created), then create my Normal Map. I think I did alright. If only there was a tutorial on how to do a good bump map for textures through PS, Gimp etc, but haven't found any. So, this is a learning process...

Here are the things I did so far.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

I was told to take the skin map, desaturate it, then invert it. I have done that in the past with success for bump and displacement, but not lately because I'm using the bump map that came with the DAZ "Lana" package.

I'm going to render again, with eyebrows.

:: og ::

One note ...

On the normal map, it appears as though it is inverted such that the areas that should be raised are lowered. Take a look at the nostril, for example. It is raised instead of lowered. Same with the indentations on the lips, and the eyebrows.

I am not familiar with GIMP, but what you would do in Photoshop is open up the normal map in Photoshop, and then go into the "Channels" palette. Then you invert ONLY the GREEN channel, which will "flip" the directions of what is up and what is down. (As Caisson mentioned, there are two formats that differ in what is raised and what is lowered ... Poser prefers Open GL, and many normal map utilities seem to default to DirectX which is probably preferred by game engines)

Otherwise, check whatever utility you used to create your normal map, and check to see if there is an INVERT NORMAL MAP feature there.

Correction .. it was Ironsoul that mentioned that DirectX and OpenGL handle the height direction differently. Didn't edit fast enough LOL

Thanks Deecey, I'll check it out and see what I can come up with.

Operaguy, yeah. I was thinking of the same thing. I was still looking at the dark being low and light being high. Granted when I was doing terrain, it was mostly an inverted greyscale, when I think about it... not to get off topic, so there it is. I'll try that as well.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

I am still searching for a more "luscious" complexion as per that first jartz render, but this render is to show the effect of high bump on eyebrows.

Firefly render with high settings and GI active, with a dome and an area light, one small spotlight.

:: og ::

Really nice render, operaguy.

I've been trying out the bump map part as we mentioned: Should I invert the greyscale or should I just desaturate it, go to Materialize, use Diffuse, the Heightmap, and the Normal and call it a day? I did a bit of trial and error and went to said program (Materialize) again, and I darken the skin texture in Diffuse, went to PhotoPaint and desaturate the dark diffuse map, went back to Materialize, add the Height Map I created, then create the Normal Map, and save it. As Deecey stated, when I open the Normal map to my Paint program some of the side go upward. So I went to Green channel, Inverted it and all goes down. I did a texture render of LaFemme, and I think it's going okay.

I love how you did the Eyebrows. Was that under a bump map or Normal. With my Normal, my brows are downward...

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

I am working only with bump maps, and procedural bump. I can't answer your question, I don't have the knowledge and experience with those other programs, and exactly zero with normal maps!

This info from ironsoul is encouraging me to stay on my path with Firefly and bump/displacement:

"For Firefly the level of detail may be dependent on the shading rate as textures are averaged across a micro-polygon. Try reducing the shade rate if the bump/NM looks lower res than expected. Bump and Normal maps work on both diffuse and specular components of light unlike specular maps. Displacement maps work by modifying the base mesh. Firefly breaks up the base mesh into micro-polygons before applying the displacement map so produce much finer details than Superfly."

Frankly, there's too much trial and error with procedural. I spent enough time attempting to tweak the settings to know it is the road to frustration for me. So I'm sticking with Firefly renders with GI and tweaking the settings for SSS, Specular, and the bump maps that came with the set.

More importantly, the map-set I'm working with is spectacular. Whatever genius created it for DAZ, I wish I could find more like it. The camera used must have been powerful. What's odd is that the only one of the four "V4 Elite Maps" that are this fine is the "Lana." The others all have issues.

::::: Opera :::::

OpenEXR file of a render. Post-process to desaturate, unsharp mask, and tone mapping, for effect.

::::: Opera :::::

Once more, with feeling...

You absolutely_ cannot _make a valid bump map from a desaturated diffuse map. So it follows that if you then make a normal map from that, it will be wrong.

Don't simply take my word for it; you can either see for yourself that the raised and indented areas correspond to colour, which is nothing to do with the underlying texture. Any areas that look correct are more down to happy coincidence than anything else.

If that ain't good enough for you, search out older threads on the subject, particularly BagginsBill's comments about it.

So there.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

I long ago gave up using the diffuse for bump, and am only tweaking the bump map that came with the "Lana" package. I'll check BB's comments, hopefully they teach a way to make a bump map!

I guess I'm sorry I mentioned that old idea.

:: og ::

operaguy posted at 9:40PM Thu, 14 March 2019 - #4348072

I long ago gave up using the diffuse for bump, and am only tweaking the bump map that came with the "Lana" package. I'll check BB's comments, hopefully they teach a way to make a bump map!

I guess I'm sorry I mentioned that old idea.

:: og ::

Hey, you're an OK fella. I just didn't want you wasting your time.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Thanks, Sam. Can you or anyone help with the settings of a bump map? a) is there a video tutorial on it somewhere, or a PDF tutorial? b) is it explained in the Poser user manual. I mean an actual "this is what will change" level?

I would love to know what each of these actually do:

Checing the manual, I'm finding "some" information about those nodes....

Sam Therapy, I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not saying that BB does not know the deep truth, but just for the record, the Poser manual suggests the desaturated/inverted diffuse map for a bump!

::::: Opera :::::

With the digital emily project they used the specular reflection map to build the normal map. I'm assuming this avoids the problem of skin pigment variations and SSS impacting the detail. They probably also used a model that wasn't wearing makeup and had washed her face to make the distribution of sebum more even.

Makeup/washed clean ...

Ironsoul, that is one of my issues with the "V4 Elite Skin maps" from DAZ ... while the Lana set her face is totally devoid of makeup and definitely deep cleaned, with the others, Amy and Marie, the photoed skin is not "honest." How someone could think that the basis for a skin map should have makeup and/or plucked eyebrows is beyond comprehension.

How do you obtain a "specular reflection map?" Can you precipitate that out from a photograph? I wonder if "Materialize" can do that? I'm going to check tomorrow.

The article behind the link explains it better but they used polarised lenses (Polariztion of specular light). I haven't used Materialize but it most likely would generate any spec map from the same info as the height/Normal map so not sure the benefit. From a learning point of view it might easier to start with something mundane like generating a height map for a brickwall or wooden planks.

They used two photos per camera and changed the polarization between both Images. On one Image, the light from the lamps was polarized differently than the filters on the camera. This way no direct reflection is recorded. Then, they shot a "normal" Image. The difference between the two is the speculation, which they used for the normal map, probably after compensating for Fresnel based reflections.

The results of using Polarisation filters when photographing Skin are pretty drastic. I assume that Levius' latest photosets are made in a similar way, since they don't seem to contain much specularity. Sadly, there does not seem to be a "specular" Version as well, so creating spec maps isn't possible that way.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

Hi bantha, thanks for the link to Levius, and I see no evidence of any maps, just photos. The sets look fantastic.

But you say "Sadly, there does not seem to be a "specular" Version as well, so creating spec maps isn't possible that way." So... are you saying you can't pull a spec map out of a photo, and optionally turn it into a normal or bump map?

wait, i read you post more carefully... I think you are saying that with Levius, there is only one file per shot, not a "regular" and a "polarized." So you can't use the two to take the difference and make a spec map, like they did for Emily. Right?

operaguy posted at 9:30PM Fri, 15 March 2019 - #4348087

Checing the manual, I'm finding "some" information about those nodes....

Sam Therapy, I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not saying that BB does not know the deep truth, but just for the record, the Poser manual suggests the desaturated/inverted diffuse map for a bump!

::::: Opera :::::

There's a long standing tradition of stuff being odd, badly worded or just plain wrong in the Poser manual, even in many of the supplied materials and their suggested uses. This is just one example.

The thing is, you can make a bump map from a desaturated image map but it won't be correct. It's how many vendors here and at DAZ have done it over the years. Doesn't mean it's the right way to do it, though. Still, if you're happy with indented navels, nipples, freckles and every other bit of skin that's darker than the surrounding area, or raised parts where the skin is lighter, then go for it.

The key thing to remember is, the underlying bumps, lumps and erm, texture of a skin bears absolutely no relation to the colour values represented in a diffuse map. Taking that into account, how the heck can you ever expect a bump map derived from such a source to be valid? Sure, you'll get bumps, which to some people, is all that matters but if you want to get as close to realism as possible, you'll avoid this method entirely.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

SamTherapy, what is the correct way to make bump maps?

Crikey, that is one hell of a question. Short answer is, to get a good, realistic bump map is a colossal pain in the hind end and every bit as time consuming as creating a diffuse texture from scratch. But more so. Effectively you'd have to draw every wrinkle, crease, pore and whatnot, since there's no efficient way of extracting them wholesale from a diffuse map. That said, you may be able to get away with using premade photos of pores, wrinkles and creases, desaturated, then placed into appropriate areas on a blank map. Way, way back, Anton suggested using a desaturated scan of orange peel for pores. Never tried that one myself but it sounds like it could work. You could hand paint creases, blurring brush edges and blending, and maybe using a fine grain "granite" overlay in places. Any or all of these methods, plus many more I don't know about. Just bear in mind that your overall map shouldn't shade or lighten overall. It will definitely look very different from any of the bump maps you're used to seeing but since it's only interested in generating bumps, not shade, it should work properly.

I may be wrong here but ISTR BB used to create them through his old shader tricks, but I don't think the whole shader works properly with current versions of Poser. Repeat, I could be wrong.

All that said, SnarlyGribbly's EZSkin can generate procedural bump maps for you, and that's the method I use nowadays, on the rare occasion I render humans.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

SamTherapy posted at 7:07PM Fri, 15 March 2019 - #4348142

All that said, SnarlyGribbly's EZSkin can generate procedural bump maps for you, and that's the method I use nowadays, on the rare occasion I render humans.

This there. You're right, Sam.

I've been content in working with just the EZSkin's texture and procedural bump and specular map method. It does help a ton, I also managed to raise the lips bump shader just a tad and get to see the creases. Only thing I want to know, will it let me do mask for make-up or would the Layer option be the way to go?

Other than that, I'm good!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

That, unfortunately, is something I don't know. Maybe ask Snarly.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Thanks again, all.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

No doubt you've had enough of the notifications by now but hope the following helps with your last question.

Problem with adding a mask direct to Ezskin mat is the complexity of the node set-up so layer is probably a good place to start however it has its own problems. Thought I'd do a quick example of layers with Firefly but didn't seem to work so this is for Superfly.
Create Mask

Apply Ezskin to figure

Add new Layer to skin mat, add new material and apply mask

Render...

This will create a lne where the mat ends with other textures which I think is due to the SSS. Solution appears to be to add the layer to these adjacent textures.

Render again

The layer just replaces the mats below so if you require effects like bump to propagate through its a bit of a problem. I use a much simplier texture set than Ezskin so just copy the bump onto the new layer but for Ezskin that is more complex.

Hope that helps with the ideas

I got it now. Thanks.

JB

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

ironsoul posted at 7:38PM Sat, 16 March 2019 - #4348162

No doubt you've had enough of the notifications by now but hope the following helps with your last question.

Problem with adding a mask direct to Ezskin mat is the complexity of the node set-up so layer is probably a good place to start however it has its own problems. Thought I'd do a quick example of layers with Firefly but didn't seem to work so this is for Superfly.
Create Mask

Apply Ezskin to figure

Add new Layer to skin mat, add new material and apply mask

Render...

This will create a lne where the mat ends with other textures which I think is due to the SSS. Solution appears to be to add the layer to these adjacent textures.

Render again

The layer just replaces the mats below so if you require effects like bump to propagate through its a bit of a problem. I use a much simplier texture set than Ezskin so just copy the bump onto the new layer but for Ezskin that is more complex.

Hope that helps with the ideas

I was wondering if adding the mask layers prior to using EZSkin would work. Set up a regular texture, get the masks in place, then run EZSkin. Haven't tried it so I don't know if it would be a valid workaround.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Ezskin blats much of the existing shader node set-up, even Snarly's coding skills can't cope will every variation of the the material room's node set-up.

Oh well, that's knackered that idea, then. :(

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

About the process for Emily ...

What if you had a great regular photo and also a polarized one? For Poser, would that be worth pursuing?

I emailed levius and adam responded and is curious. (not a flat "no.")

If he supplied both, what would the next step be, and is it even worth it?

::::: Opera :::::

Then next step would be to create the difference between both of them. You would get a specular map, also you would probably see the pores, since they reflect differently. It's explained in the "digital Emmely" link earlier in this thread. It is crucial that the model does not move between the shots and both shots use the same angle.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

When creating the specular map, you would need to take care only to use the center part of the specular map. Due to the Fresnel effect, the skin becomes very reflective if the angle is to steep.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

bantha, that was my specific thought: the model CAN NOT MOVE. I wonder if the pros on Emily had a camera that could shoot both at the same time.

I'm going to go back and read the Emily information, but in general:

1. what does one need to get a polarized file? A special lens or a special filter or a special setting on the camera?

2. is "taking the difference" a simple thing a person could do in photoshop, and then export spec, normal and bump maps?

{I know many are pursuing procedural bump and spec, but I am still interested in actual maps, for the moment}

:: og ::

Regarding 1. This might help YT link

More specific details here. I also found a video on Youtube that went onto the optical details in more depth but as it was focused on the medical application and contain subjects people might find distressing did not post a link - search for "Katharine Hanlon Cross-polarized and parallel-polarized light" if you're interested - also contained an interesting slide on the impact of colour with skin depth which is OT here but curious how it would work with fresnel when creating SSS.

ironsoul, I watched the video you linked, and will drill down on the other links you just provided. I sent Adam (levius) another email with more information, and links.

I guess I am obsessed now. I am dreaming of EmilyPoser.

::::: Opera :::::

Adam at 3d.sk responded to my email and says he will discuss with his photography staff.

Downloaded Emily mesh and textures and had a go, the mesh loaded in without problems, the exr format texture files took a while but it was straight forward to load as a 2d texture (no UV issues). How to set it up for best results I don't know, below used the physical root node and I boosted the spec to get a response to the scene lighting. For a better example of using Emily in Poser see BBs post here.

I should have put in proper eye textures but the zombie look was too appealing.

On reflection just boosting the spec value breaks the PBR model, as the upper surface of skin is a different optical properties than the lower maybe it cannot be done off just one node which means either layers or cycles node. The idea of using the physical root node is to produce a simple unbiased skin mat that is consitent across different lighting sets. The problem I found is the cross polarized image was much darker than expected (loss in the capture process ?) - typical the spec component should be around 4% but I boosted it much higher for above. Back to the drawing board but curious if any thoughts on PBR and skin mats.

ironsoul posted at 7:59AM Fri, 22 March 2019 - #4348521

On reflection just boosting the spec value breaks the PBR model, as the upper surface of skin is a different optical properties than the lower maybe it cannot be done off just one node which means either layers or cycles node.

Sorry I'm not following this thought. If something needs two nodes, you don't immediately decide it has to be layers or cycles - we've been fresnel blending in FireFly for 12 years. What mattered in producing high-quality renders was to make the math do what physics does, and HOW (with one node or 100) doesn't matter. Obviously, if we can get the right math from one node, that is preferred.

The idea of using the physical root node is to produce a simple unbiased skin mat that is consitent across different lighting sets. The problem I found is the cross polarized image was much darker than expected (loss in the capture process ?) - typical the spec component should be around 4% but I boosted it much higher for above.

I am on the wrong computer and don't have the digital Emily resources at hand. What is the average value of the image in question? Was it around 10 out of 255? That is 4%, linear. Did you forget to tell Poser to use gamma of 1 on that map? Also, 4% is for smooth glass. Human skin surface is rough, and does not have an IoR of 1.5 but closer to 1.35 so we'd expect the specular map to tell us a reflection coefficient around 2.2 %. But do we even know what the specular map coding means? Suppose instead it has been normalized to represent the fraction of the idealized smooth surface fresnel reflection? In which case it would be encoded a lot higher than 4%.

It is unfortunate that PBR does not actually say what units and semantics are in a specular map - only thing we know is bigger numbers mean more. That's not telling us much.

---

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)

ironsoul, that LightColab page you linked talks about the issue you just raised ... >>>The problem I found is the cross polarized image was much darker than expected (loss in the capture process ?) <<

"Another issue to be aware of is that the proportional amounts of the diffuse and spec will be off slightly. This is because the parallel polarized image lets 100% of the spec through, but blocks 50% of the diffuse, meaning that the spec will be 2x brighter, in relation to the diffuse, than it would in a photo without any polarizing filters. You can observe in the images above that the skin looks oilier than it normally would. Once aware of this, it is easy to adjust for it in your comp by either brightening the diffuse or darkening the spec a bit. In the animated image below, you can see the effects of brightening the cross polarized "diffuse" pass and the resulting composited image."

This is an older Emily. She agreed to be scanned again, 7 years later. I like the added character in her face.

Download page: http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/DigitalEmily2/

Loaded the .obj into Poser.

Opened the .exr texture files one by one in Affinity and saved them out as 100% .jpg. The files are 6000x6000.

Attempted to engage both the supplied eye files and also a typical poser eye texture on “eye-inner” and “eye_outter” but unsuccessful. I don’t know how to get the eyes. So I have nothing on the eyes. Somehow the eyelashes got their map.

Firefly Render, high settings with EnvSphere, one difuseIBL and one area light. GI engaged.

This is my amateur shader (please be kind!)

Note: there is a displacement map! Should both bump and displacement be engaged? I don’t know.

Note: on the page linked above, there is a summary shader scheme, including one for displacement which engages an included file “00_displacement_micro.exr” which is 16,000x16,000 in size. Naturally, being greedy, I wonder if poser can digest that! Sure, you could reduce the micro-displacement file, but doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

Hilarious. After all the trouble to get a great specular map, I connected it to the spec node but left the value at zero! I've upped it to .75, highlight size .01 for the render below ... it's Emily resting from a workout, sweating.

@operaguy - like how the skin detail has come out but I was assuming the micro displacement map would be the choice for the bump input, did this not work? BTW thanks for your earlier post, think reducing the spec levels in my render would help.

@bagginsbill - the idea of avoiding extra nodes is to keep compatibility with Substance painter which uses texture maps only . The thought behind adding a layer was to have the lower skin layers (pigment and SSS) set-up in the base layer whilst the detail and specular on layer 1 and blend the two together - in theory these could still be PBR mats compatible with Substance painter in terms of exporting/importing the textures . The 4% is/was the default setting used by substance painter, which I didn't question. Apprechiate the explanation and figures.

I was afraid to attach that micro displacement file. It is stupendous. 16,000 x 16,000 pixels. Will poser allow raw .exr files like that to be attached in the material room?

[side thought] All this is moot if merchant resources vendors don't include the final maps, or at least the two images]

Anyone know how to solve the eye situation with this mesh?

I turned down the specular value to .2 in this one:

::::: Opera :::::

Turns out Poser WILL allow the attachment of giant .exr raw 16000x16000 displacement maps! I'm rendering now.

Meanwhile, can any shader gurus translate this into a material room shader? As seen on this page: Download page: http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/DigitalEmily2/

[image changed for clarity]

shader tree2.jpg

This one: I plugged in the huge micro-displacement map that downloads with the Emily2 project.

In this case, I plugged the map into both bump and displacement nodes, and set the value for each at .003

I'm sure I could fiddle all day with this research project, but the real question is how to get these resources from vendors.

::::: Opera :::::

I found that I accidentally wrote over my DigitalEmily scene from 3 years ago, but after hunting through many autosaves I found the one that made this image.

The skin shader is nothing more than the Scatter + Blinn I've used and published a thousand times. I did not use a specular map. The variations in this image are simply by inserting an HSV node between the color map and the scatter, and then adjusting it for various skin tones.

There was considerable extra junk in it to make the eyebrows but that's not how you usually deal with them.

---

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

I'm having a bit of Poser nuttiness with this file. Attempting to click on the shaders results in Poser hanging. Apparently Poser was more capable 3 years ago than now. Sorry - screen shots will have to wait. I'm going away for the weekend.

---

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

I guess BB's post adds up to "deploy the diffuse map and drive roughness, glint, wetness and height with procedural." Is that correct?

Naturally, if indeed Emily-like results in an extreme closeup can be achieved this way, hurrah! To hell with all the double photography and post-production.

Still ... you have to pull out your camera to shoot at least one set of images, right? For the diffuse? How much more work is it to produce the polarized partner shots? {I keep visualizing a purpose-built dual camera to take both shots at the same time}

I have not heard back from Adam at 3d.sk about the feasibility of adding the second shot.

::::: Opera :::::

At the risk of looking foolish (not the first time); do they not make polarizing light filters for camera lenses anymore? They used to be common and cheap for any major lens manufacturer back in the 70'-90's. Big issue as I see it is movement of the subject between shots with and without filter.

parkdalegardener,

Yes, those filters are common and not too expensive.

That's the easy part. As you point out, taking two shots as identical as possible is the problem.

I don't believe you need two cameras. You just shoot with the lens in "non-polar" mode, then twist the filter and shoot again. I still don't see how this can be solid, even with a tripod, since there will be a second or two or three between shots, and if shooting a live subject ... well, there will be movement.

The reason I keep fantasizing on a two-aperture or two camera setup is: some automation to take both images at the exact same second. Even then, the polarized shot will take longer, since less light gets through.

In practice polarising filters are used to reduce reflected light and improve the saturation of colours, especially useful with blue skies, water and glass. Definitely still made. The idea with cross-polarised photos (both camera and light source are filtered) for texturing resources would be to cut down on light reflecting from the skin. There are some photos, along with height maps derived from scan data, available at surfacemimic.com (search for 'Adam' and 'Isabella'); other sites I know of are texturing.xyz and 3dscanstore.com. Commercial licences don't come cheap though ;)

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

operaguy posted at 9:12AM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348633

I guess BB's post adds up to "deploy the diffuse map and drive roughness, glint, wetness and height with procedural." Is that correct?

No, I certainly used the bump map and it is the key to the realism. What I didn't use or bother with (and never have, on skin) is a specular or roughness map. IMO the specularity differences are minute, and the roughness differences are not mandatory nor desirable. Oily skin areas are something people avoid and use makeup to eliminate when doing portrait photography.

Here is a specular-only render, showing the super-important contribution of the bump map.

This bump map is decidedly NOTHING to do with a derivative of the diffuse color map, and it is why the results are so fantastic. Bump is like the #1 thing. Color is important but far less important, and roughness (modulation) is not important at all, as far as I can tell.

---

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)

Hi BB,

1. when you say "roughness maps" (and that they don't matter much) do you mean displacement maps?
2. if I were in possession of a great diffuse map with little or no reflections, how would I make a bump map, since (and I agree) you don't make it from the diffuse map?

Thank you

::::: Opera :::::

{edit to add: I suspect the answer to #2 is: a hi-res 3D scan}

There is a plugin called Shine Off by imadio software that will help get rid of skin shine. It works with Photoshop 7 or later, Photoshop Elements 2 or later, and PaintShop Pro 7 or later. There is a trial version to test it out.

ShineOff Plugin

As far as creating bump maps there are several videos on youtube for how to generate skin details in ZBrush (Mudbox or other sculpting methods would be similar). To get the detail that Emily has you need high resolution skin displacement maps (the best are from texturing XYZ but they are pricey if you want to use them commercially).

At texturing.xyz, $140 for the full suite, and that's just the face. You have to purchase small parts of the body one by one. It might take $1000 for a full figure.

As for "how to generate skin details in ZBrush" that would be sculpting/painting skin like an artist, right? Not from life photos.

operaguy posted at 12:02PM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348784

At texturing.xyz, $140 for the full suite, and that's just the face. You have to purchase small parts of the body one by one. It might take $1000 for a full figure.

As for "how to generate skin details in ZBrush" that would be sculpting/painting skin like an artist, right? Not from life photos.

Correct.

If you don't mind watching tutorials that are sped up, here's a guy doing George Clooney in ZBRush:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVROI8SF9Y

Here's another one that shows using several layers of scuplting to get the detail in the face

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWCektCpaXQ

There are lots more, that is just a couple I picked at random

SurfaceMimic.com sells very inexpensive high-resolution skin patches. $20 to $30 would get all you need (4 to 6 patches) to make skin bump maps. They are royalty free.

Here's a youtube video of an artist using them to make pores on an Einstein figure in ZBrush.

As for larger-scale wrinkles, I think you paint them in ZBrush or similar apps.

---

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 at 11:20AM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348772

Hi BB,

1. when you say "roughness maps" (and that they don't matter much) do you mean displacement maps?
2. if I were in possession of a great diffuse map with little or no reflections, how would I make a bump map, since (and I agree) you don't make it from the diffuse map?

1. A roughness map would affect the roughness value. Makes the shader more or less shiny. Has nothing to do with bump or displacement, but in fact simulates nano-bumps.

2. A single diffuse map does not have the nessesary Information. You would have to make the structures yourself. Not easy.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

operaguy posted at 11:25AM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348784

At texturing.xyz, $140 for the full suite, and that's just the face. You have to purchase small parts of the body one by one. It might take $1000 for a full figure.

Quality is expensive. Images from this site are used by the professionals, so expect pro Prices.

As for "how to generate skin details in ZBrush" that would be sculpting/painting skin like an artist, right? Not from life photos.

You can use the patches BB mentioned as alpha maps in ZBrush. You can use photos for texturing, but not for pores. If it's just pores and not wrinkles you probably can use them in Surbstance Painter too

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

bantha please spare the admonishment {lecture} ... i was not complaining in any way, just stating the fact for perspective. Thank You.

bantha:

Me to BB: when you say "roughness maps" (and that they don't matter much) do you mean displacement maps?

bantha: A roughness map would affect the roughness value. Makes the shader more or less shiny. Has nothing to do with bump or displacement, but in fact simulates nano-bumps.

That did not answer my question. There is no "roughness" node on the Poser Surface.

Can you please translate "roughness" into something an intermediate user of the material room such as myself can grasp?

Roughness = affects how sharp/tight or blurred/diffused the highlights are. Water is not rough, so would be indicated by very dark values in the map and the highlights would be sharp and appear bright. Dry wood would be rough so have values near white and the highlights would be so blurred and diffused across the surface that it appears dull. Note that this does not have anything to do with the amount of light reflected though, that remains the same.

----------------------------------------

Not approved by Scarfolk Council. For more information please reread. Or visit my local shop.

operaguy posted at 2:38PM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348804

bantha:

Me to BB: when you say "roughness maps" (and that they don't matter much) do you mean displacement maps?

bantha: A roughness map would affect the roughness value. Makes the shader more or less shiny. Has nothing to do with bump or displacement, but in fact simulates nano-bumps.

That did not answer my question. There is no "roughness" node on the Poser Surface.

Can you please translate "roughness" into something an intermediate user of the material room such as myself can grasp?

There is a roughness connection on the Physical Surface Node.

There are two different ways to handle shine and highlights on surfaces when setting up physically correct shaders. The PoserSurface node uses something similar to the "Specular-Glossiness" workflow. The Physical Surface node, on the other hand, uses a "Metallic and Roughness" workflow, and IS more or less geared toward using textures that were specifically designed for PBR render engines, such as those created in Substance Painter.

Second post on this page starts to explain the differences:

https://forum.allegorithmic.com/index.php?topic=3243.0

Thanks caisson, bb, deecey, and bantha

However ...

I am out of my league here. I don't know what a "Physical Surface Node" is, so while the advanced people here are supplying deep information about roughness, but I'll just sit back and bookmark and perhaps review when I get more experienced.

Here's my reality: I am getting fine results with the "Lana" maps from DAZ, the diffuse and bump. Apparently, DAZ made the Lana bump map with some variant of the discussion here.

My renders are in this thread high above.

When I want to tweak, I just adjust the bump amount on the PoserSurrface, and the specular setting on it the attached map. Also the SSS and the intensity and kind for the lights. Thank you Snarly.

I am hoping to find out how to make bump maps of high quality, or purchase them, some of which has been spelled out here so far. Thanks for the links to purchasable maps.

::::: Opera :::::

operaguy posted at 3:20PM Mon, 25 March 2019 - #4348808

Thanks caisson, bb, deecey, and bantha

However ...

I am out of my league here. I don't know what a "Physical Surface Node" is, so while the advanced people here are supplying deep information about roughness, but I'll just sit back and bookmark and perhaps review when I get more experienced.

Here's my reality: I am getting fine results with the "Lana" maps from DAZ, the diffuse and bump. Apparently, DAZ made the Lana bump map with some variant of the discussion here.

My renders are in this thread high above.

When I want to tweak, I just adjust the bump amount on the PoserSurrface, and the specular setting on it the attached map. Also the SSS and the intensity and kind for the lights. Thank you Snarly.

I am hoping to find out how to make bump maps of high quality, or purchase them, some of which has been spelled out here so far. Thanks for the links to purchasable maps.

::::: Opera :::::

Explore the Power of the Poser Physical Root Node (webinar)

thanks

add:

Oh. It's for SuperFly. That's not for me. But thanks anyway.

Roughness has many names, because reasons. And they're not just SuperFly. Here are a bunch of nodes that implement roughness followed by what that node calls it.

PoserSurface Highlight_Size

Reflect Softness

Anisotropic u_Highlight_Size and v_Highlight_Size

Phong Size

Glossy Roughness

Blinn Eccentricity

Specular Roughness

ks_microfacet roughness

Clay Roughness

---

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)

SamTherapy posted at 10:58AM Mon, 22 April 2019 - #4348182

ironsoul posted at 7:38PM Sat, 16 March 2019 - #4348162

No doubt you've had enough of the notifications by now but hope the following helps with your last question.

Problem with adding a mask direct to Ezskin mat is the complexity of the node set-up so layer is probably a good place to start however it has its own problems. Thought I'd do a quick example of layers with Firefly but didn't seem to work so this is for Superfly.
Create Mask

Apply Ezskin to figure

Add new Layer to skin mat, add new material and apply mask

Render...

This will create a lne where the mat ends with other textures which I think is due to the SSS. Solution appears to be to add the layer to these adjacent textures.

Render again

The layer just replaces the mats below so if you require effects like bump to propagate through its a bit of a problem. I use a much simplier texture set than Ezskin so just copy the bump onto the new layer but for Ezskin that is more complex.

Hope that helps with the ideas

I was wondering if adding the mask layers prior to using EZSkin would work. Set up a regular texture, get the masks in place, then run EZSkin. Haven't tried it so I don't know if it would be a valid workaround.

EZSkin 3 had an experimental feature to enable overlaying of one material over another.

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

@Snarlygribbly - Did you take down EZSkin 3 / your site? The link in your footer isn't working anymore.

My RMP Store | Freebies

Poser Ambassador; Poser 11 & 12 / DS4 / Metasequoia / Silo / Zbrush / realityPaint / UVMapperPro / XD 4 / Ps CC / Fw / Ai / Painter 12 / Clip Studio Paint / Comipo / Reality 3 / Windows 10 / Units = Poser Native

@andolaurina they are available here: Snarlygribbly's scripts

"Turns out Poser WILL allow the attachment of giant .exr raw ... displacement maps!"

Thanks @operaguy !!

I'd found some nice terrain textures in CGT's sale, but Poser's documentation of import formats is a bit sparse, especially beyond the obvious...

Now I gotta figure how to get a lovely sandy wadi / valley's Terrain_Data out of its Unity package and into Poser...