Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Actually, it's pretty effortless to see the fuzziness of socks. No extreme closeup needed nor 4K and that's the whole point. Things in life have additional details that 3D still struggles to replicate.
Fooled a number of my friends with this.
Fooled a number of my friends with this.
But that picture itself is of a sock. I guess I wasn't clear, I mean if you had a picture of person standing in a scene with socks on, where the main focus isn't the feet or socks. By the way what did you do to get that effect is it displacement? When you say "3d still struggles to replicate", do you mean lmitations in the 3d engine, rendering capabilities or availability of assets?
Nice pores.
Yeah, of a sock. You claimed the fuzzies, that are usually on, well, most socks would need extreme closeups/4K to notice. But, as that picture shows, that simply isn't true. Whether a person is wearing them or not. The focus of my picture is the sock and not the figure wearing it. I only used that closeup to really point out how detailed we could get, but I could have zoomed out and those things would still be moderately noticeable (as they would be on a real sock). The new attached is specifcally what I mean.
As for how I got that effect. No. It is separate gemoetry, which was my point. 3D pictures often lack those details. It isn't always down to engines or hardware, though. Sometimes, it is simply time and experience.
Discussion of socks notwithstanding, this is great!
I would agree a lint generator would be valuable asset for realism. And I'm not denying little things matter, just if it couldn't be seen it can be ignored. Here is an example where I thought it was a MUST to add condensation to a beer bottle.
That's like saying Vellus Hairs should be ignored because you have to get really close to see them (and those hairs are far less noticeable than what I produced on the socks). It is silly to omit an option simply because some "won't see it".
Nice concept! A few suggestions.
1. The shadows don't have the same shade as the real people and they are a bit longer. The horizontal angle seems right but it maybe too low of an angle.. The real shows are bit more bluish grey so maybe change the color of the sun light a tad.
2. Skin tones are off. Even though people have different skin tones and even in the crowd you can see people with different colorization. However in the same lighting most peoples skins become close to the same because they are reflecting the same color of light. Might fiddle with your transmitted distance and translucency and set the translucey, reservation and sss for them and set them all a bit close if not the same.
3. The original photos has a big scattering of the light making it look kind of blurry that is not represented on the 3d characters making them look too crisp for the scene. I might try some soft HDRI's for this and blur effects or could be worked in post.
4. the girl on the right doesn't look like she is really comfortable touching the middle girl. Might try bringing that hand in some more and just the slightest overlap skins. We are really just bags of squishy.
5. If your using dual lobe for gloss/shine maybe bump that up and or bring roughness down.
OR On most of those you could enhance the original image, like color correct the original images shadows to match those of your 3d ones. Sometimes this approach is way easier to get them to match.
Eh, nit picks aside, I actually really like this image. Good to see so many artists trying to tackle this side of the medium (many ignore more photorealistic sources).
its pretty funny how many people jeffsomeone fooled again by his renders
Bravo! This is a great render. The little bits of leg hair are genius—I don't kow why this thread doesn't give something like this more love. I find it as convincing as @jeffsomeone's work, just in a different vein.
To be critical, the bottle penetrates the ground slightly, as does (I think) the sunscreen bottle. The glasses near the botle need a slight edge bevel. The lime is too saturated. There's some obvious render noise in the hair. The ice cube is balanced on a point in a weird way. And the water around the bootle and cube doesn't have surface tension. Which is to day, the stuff that gives this away as 3D is all tiny stuff you have to look at full size and hunt for.
Artistically, I'd like it less blown out, but that's more of an artistic choice than anything else.
If I didn't know it was CGI, I dont't know that it would occur to me otherwise. Nice work!
Thanks, I am a strong believer in feedback. That image was about 3 years ago when I first started learning how to use Daz, it was a promo concept for a friend. I come from the game and app development industry so already had some knowledge on shaders and modeling. When it comes to games people tell you about all the flaws, in volumes. I see that as a way to make ones works better, when possible...sometimes people ask for the impossible...I like to consider those a challange.
That's extra impressive from 3 years ago, before dual lobe skin shaders.
I think this is pretty convincing, especially when viewed up close. (I know @jCade has pointed out that such clean lipstick lines don't exist in nature, but they probably exist in retouched photos, including the one I used for a reference.) Alas, I've just realized the morph I made from a G3 character (or something else, but probably that) distorts her eyes so they aren't circles.
32-bit .exr's finished in Affinity Photo with a film LUT to emulate Agfa Vista 200 film and scanned ISO 100 film noise overlayed. Because that's how I roll my retro. Pose based on a Gal Gadot pose that exposed how G8 figures can't move their shoulders like famous Isreali actors. I had to crop off the weird arm distortion.
My bad 2019 looks like, had to find the original. 2020 has seemed doubly long. The chracter is Bridget HD so wasn't availble that long ago either. I hadn't heard of this Affinity Photo before but I'm looking at it now. The shadows and color variation is excellent. I haven't seen many good closeups of fingers with g8. Is part of your morph from the g8 the fingers? I see what you mean about the eyes. Maybe take the eyes from a standard g8 and replace them? I've been considering a test to replace the G8 eyes with something like this but haven't gotten to it yet. https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/human-eye-3d-max/747725
my two most recent images and some notes
obv getting good looking teeth was a focus - I started with the textures and settings from a blujaunte's Misumi (which are already quite good btw) and then tweaked further. the teeth have translucency weight set to 1 and refraction weight to .6 also a relatively big transmitted measurement distance - teeth are seriously translucent. for the bump I just used a noise texture tiled on the x axis and stretched on the y. I also stuck the same in displacement. the displacement helps break up symmetry, as the daz teeth are perfectly symmetrical and real teath really arent. both also help break up the specular
I was looking at reference of shiny skin and trying to replicae it my one absolute consession to aestetics over realism - if I were being true to my reference the lips would have been much drier but despite oily skin and dry lips absolutely being realistic if you give your cg character lips that are more matte than their face people get weirded out. Matte lips is a whole trend why is cg so into lipgloss?
Also trying an alternative/additon to vellus hair one that I'm kicking myself for not thinking of earlier. backscattering is part of the DS ubershader designed to approximate things like velvet - which, obviously, is a fabric with a buch of tiny hairs - basically exactly what vellus hair is. I've even been using the velvet shader in blender for skin on occasion, So why I didn't think of this before now is silly. backscattering is kind of finicky - occasionally you hit an angle where everything gets a weirdly washed out but if you just move the camera a hair it goes away. I don't think this will completely replace vellus hair, but it does have the advantage that it works on areas like the ears where using sbh doesn't work. I've also started using backscattering for virtually all clothing
I need to so some renders with less flat lighting
I don't mind that lipstick at all actually - I think the bit of noise you added probably helps. It doesn't look geometrially sharp (it doesn't look like you colored it by selecting the lip material zone and just tinting it)
I also really like the jewelry especially the rings
IMO the problem with Genesis eyes is less the geometry and more how iray handles refraction and shadows -
this model would not behave like this in iray
to get this sort of refraction in Iray you have to turn thinwalled off - at which point the cornea and eyesurface will cast massive shadows on the eye
thinwalled on
the refraction is sad
thinwalled off
proper refraction but massive shadowing issues, and I swear it messes with the sss somehow (also it takes way longer to render)
Thinwalled on/off also effects how the light hits the iris proper refraction tends to make the eye look less flat and dead even when you're looking at it from the front
honestly I preferred the g3 eye setup with the cornea and sclera sharing a surface. You could turn thinwalled off and you got weird shadowing on the cornea but at least it wasn't also on the sclera
I have another character with problems eyes. Massively problematic eyes, where the eyesockets have a fold in them—the eyes are where my G3 to G8 transfers have failed. When I tried to zero out the eyes from the morph, it didn't work because they weren't in the right place an the eyelids didn't work right. Which means it's likely even brilliantly modeled external eyes won't work. It might be that the morph for this character (LY Jessenia HD switched to a G8 morph using Sickle Yield's technique) isn't so far removed from the character minus that morph that I can't fix it that way. I can probably change the morph tolerances to fix it. I hope :)
The hand/finger detail comes from a Daz base character HD pack, I think. The skin is also a Daz base character, one of the G8 East Asian/Polyneasian characters. I don't know about the northern European characters, but the darker skinned characters from Daz have outstanding skins, provided you don't want many "imperfections." I don't think they render/tone them in a way that shows off how much detail there is sitting there for extraction with the right lighting and postwork to bring it out*. Affinity Photo has some 32-bit-related bugs and a sometimes non-intuitive workflow coming from Photoshop, but I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the toning workflow. You can really dial in the detail without it looking etched.
*Oh, wait, I do: I changed my shader settings a lot, in part using learnings from @JCade's work along with my own brown-skinned character expiramentation. Not that they couldn't adopt those settings.
Oy, eyes definitely cause problems outside of the morph-induced problems I have. I have a few renders where the skin/figure looks fine, but the eyes look 2D. On the other hand, I rarely zoom up close enough to faces to have the problems be too noticeable.
PS, the lipstick is actually a red tint applied to…something in the lips, along with reducing the thin coat roughness. So, for that render, I kind of did just put red in the lips. I just didn't do too much of it.
The image that inspired mine is this one:
So, yeah, totally matte lips. Your render is fantastic, though, even with those glossy lips. The matte lip thing feels like it might be weirdly hard to pull off—as you've pointed out about make-up before, it's rarely perfect, yet the matte look thing always seems to be something done by stylists, where you can have those laser-sharp lines at the edge. Ombré lips were hard to pull off, too.
The gloss on the neck looks a bit high, though. faces have a lot more oil than most of the rest of the body, but it looks like her skin oil is consistent from face to ears to neck.
The second image works super well, but the first one felt like the lighting was too flat and forward. I've been using a single very large spot light (150 cm dia) in a room with an HDRI set to 0.5 or even 0.25 for ambient lighting* based on video on single softbox lighting by a professional portrait photorapher. He points it in front of the model, often with a bounce on the other side for shadow fills to get shape.
*I render out my lights and environment to exr passes so I have more control of the lighting in post, which means I sometimes render out the HDRI environment at full (2.0) strength to reduce noise, then pull it back in post to get more shape defiition and contrast between my softbox and the ambient light.
you are 100% right here. I really need to make a custom roughness map to make the face more oily relative to the rest of the body but thats going to take effort
Wow thank you for the tests and info on those alternate eyes!
Early 80s in Berlin
Not bad. I'd match the blacks to those in the shadows in the backplate and blur her a bit to match the focus on the car.
Edit: as an expirament, I brought that into Photoshop and adjusted the levels. Bringing the blacks up to 53 and whites down to 235 made her blend much more.
Really cool! The focal point seems to be on the double decker bus though, so having her in full focus too does seem a bit unusual.