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
this doesnt seem to get much work so I thought a few of the newer people might not know it exists
Fenric's port of Ivy Generator
http://carraracafe.com/downloads/?did=1
I came across this free app (its in beta now) http://www.pixaflux.com/
Looks like its certainly not as advanced as Allegorithmic Substance applications, but it can do some pretty cool things with normal maps.
Total Commander https://www.ghisler.com/
A computer is almost useless without it, you can actually work with files on Windows, it will find them, compare them, you can edit view them, it handles zip/tar/gz/tgz files like any folder on your computer, built in FTP client, it's pretty much a clone of the old Norton Commander just so much better (if you don't know what Norton Commander is you are still young).
Thanks c d o r d oni et mikael ;) yes norton is familiar but I am not old :)
Natron 2.2.2 ist out
Open source compositing software for Win, Mac and Linux - https://natron.fr/features/
rk.
Looks like they are running out of resources, money, I mean, developers are already telling users that they can develop it only for one more year, will see what happens
http://www.xnormal.net/Faq.aspx
Normals generator I don’t have a high-density model to create a normal map with; however there are other tools available. As Age of Armour points out in the thread I linked at the beginning, there are filters for both Photoshop and Gimp which will convert a displacement map to a normal map. I tried the Gimp one, but wasn’t too happy with the results. There is, however, another option. The freeware program called XNormal also has
from
https://karl3d.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/ds-displacement-in-carrara-8/
sorry about the formatting! Ipad ..
(mod edit to remove black formatting)
okay
Texture tools to generate a Normal map for Photoshop/PSP
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-texture-tools-adobe-photoshop
As far as I am aware (and I am happy to be corrected on this), normal maps are most useful in games where speed is of the essence. Both bump maps and normal maps fake the appearance of more detail on a surface, and for the same resolution maps, there is little to choose in the results that they give. In fact normal maps don't cope well with sudden changes in height, while bump maps can be better with this. Bump maps are easier to generate and edit - so why use normal maps at all? There is a slight speed advantage, and this is useful for games where you are having to update the image many times per second, but I do not believe that for the general renderer like Carrara, normal maps offer any real benefits. Just my 2p worth.
I had to do that to read it
thanks for doing that Wendy et Miss bad Wolf - a late night post and the ipad has a mind of it's own .....
Thanks for that link Bunyip2 - I have been using that with minimal results. Maybe I shuld read the manual ;)
Hi PhilW, thanks for that input - first I've heard of that. I have had little success from the normal maps - maybe that's why?
The only reason I explore them occasionally is because of the exmaple in the carrara manual !
Presently I am mocking up some complicated faux machinery for a background and was hoping to avoid displacements.
Other discussion here as well https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/4371/normal-maps-coloured-or-blue-methods-of-simulating-wrinkles-in-clothes
Yes, my understanding of normal maps must have been completely wrong. Based on a chapter of the Carrara 5 handbook, I had thought that nomal maps could provide more detail even on a low polygon mesh. Seems like that was misinformation.
I will post the example if I can find it again. It was a model of a statuette of Nefretiri if anyone else might have it.
.
Yes, normal maps are usually used to convey the impression of a high poly model while actually using a lower poly model, and that is great for games. But if you think about it, bump maps essentially do the same thing, it saves you having to actually model all the little bumps, dips, creases, etc. As I understand it, when a render engine encounters a surface with a bump map, it compares the adjucent bump heights to work out the surface normal, whereas normal maps effectively have that pre-calculated, so you are saving that calculation - not a big deal if you are rendering a full scene, but it could have an impact on your frame rate in a game environment.
The standard way to generate normal maps is to have a high poly model and a lower poly proxy (or at a lower subdivision in something like Zbrush) and normal maps are then baked to "fake" the difference. As with bump maps though, the outline remains unchanged, it is not true high poly geometry. If you need actual geometry restored, that is what displacement maps do, but these tend to require a lot more processing.
I was really just sounding a warning note about utilities which convert bump maps to normal maps. That won't add anything extra to the quality of your final render, but it might shave a few microseconds off in a real-time environment. So great for game engines, but don't expect miracles from standard 3D rendering.
Thanks for the addtional info, Phil. Appreciate each and every nugget. No pretense of useful knowledge on my end. Will post the statuette example if I can find it just so people can see.
From what I've been understanding is that, while Bump and Displacement maps generate height only, Normal maps actually generate detail in all three axis, using colors instead of grayscale, to map the various axis information.
This is why 'real' Normal maps, created from Z Brush. Modo, 3D Coat, etc., using ultra-high resolution detail modeling to generate a Normal Map for a lower resolution mesh, are much better than 'simulated' Normal maps, like those generated from an image, like what the nVidia for Photoshop plugin and the other filter tools mentioned, do.
That all said, I've still been preferring good ol' Bump maps. Displacement and Normal are cool if we really need to alter the profile of the mesh (Bump only works face-on to the camera), but I'm fine with that. Still being firmly set in the Generation 4 world of figures, they have plenty of mesh detail for 'my' needs. I've seen and experimented with the differences, just to try them and find out what I've been missing, also from taking advice from forum members, like evilproducer. I do see why certain situations truly work best with actual displacement of a mesh over simple Bump information. I just normally don't need that much detail messing with my render times.
Newer Petipet and other figures from Daz3d have been including Normal Maps due to Iray liking them better than their Bump alternatives. So I've been using these Normal maps as I optimize my shaders, I have really been happy with them, both in ease-of-use as well as render speed. It is my understanding that Normal Maps are supposed to be used at 100%, and actually provide iffy results if we sway from that value for Bump intensity. So when I'm not completely satisfied with the Normal map, I substitute in the Bump Map right away - which are often included for 3Delight users.
It turns out that the example from the C5 Handbook that I was thinking of was of displacement mapping, not a normals map. Just ignore me.
Here you can see the difference with and without the displacement map, and the setting in the shader room.
Normal maps DO NOT alter the profile of the mesh, it is only Displacement Maps that will do that. Displacement maps create real geometry. Bump Maps and Normal Maps essentially produce the same result, which is why pre-processing a bump map into a normal map won't actually do anything for your render. What normal maps encode in their colours is the amount and direction of the slope of the mesh at that point on the high poly model as compared to the lower poly mesh on which it is projected, and thus faking the higher level of detail. Because it includes the amount AND direction, that is two parameters, which are encoded into two colour channels. And that is why it should be applied at 100%, as the two are interdependent and altering the intensity doesn't just change one, it changes both.
A Bump Map seems simpler as it only encodes the height relative to the base mesh, and it is certainly easier to understand and to edit, and it can be applied at different strengths. When the renderer processes the information, it compares the relative height to the surrounding pixels in the map, and from that derives the amount and direction of slope of the surface, and so it actually encodes the same information, just in a different way. In a sense, a bump map is the human friendly version and the normal map is the computer friendly version, a bit like decimal and binary numbers. Although they appear different, they actually encode the same number (actually there are instances where bump maps and normal maps will give slightly different results but for most practical purposes they will produce the same results).
Yes, displacement creates real (extra) geometry, so it changes the profile, can cast shadows from bumps etc, stuff that neither bump or normal maps can do.
I know that many do not have Octane but I recently posted about the awesome displacement in Octane Render:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/2048701/#Comment_2048701
Tutorial on Bump, Normal, & Displacement maps.
http://blog.digitaltutors.com/bump-normal-and-displacement-maps/
Another tutorial about texture maps
http://blog.digitaltutors.com/understanding-difference-texture-maps/
Exactly! It's important to understand what the maps do and when to use them. Bump and normals will work best for providing details that are closer to the surface and do not change the silhouette. If you think of a garment that is draped. Some wrinkles and folds change the silhouette, others are small wrinkles that are closer to the surface. The latter works well to be defined by normal maps or bump. Embroidery, stitching, grommets and such are good examples of low surface detailing. Those two documents do a nice job of explaining the different maps.
Hya thanks everyone for their input on Normal Maps. Out of interest I decided to do a 'real world' test of normal maps in Carrara.
I was quite happy with the results and will be using Normal maps much more now.
Of course the testing could be more structured and I am happy for other examples ;)
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/144721/bump-and-normal-map-comparison-examples-in-carrara
I've been using Normal maps , rather than Bump maps for a couple of years now,. and i'm very Happy and impressed with the reults.
Normal maps use RGB values,. rather than Monochrome greyscale values,. which provides a greater range of values.
I'm happy and impressed too. Sometimes I do opt for Bump instead, if I wish to tweak the amount higher or lower. But the Normal Maps provided in the products I've got from the store are really top-notch and work really well!
Hi Cris!
Yes, it's great that we can use normal maps when they are included with a product, or when produced from a program such as Zbrush.
Okay odd question, Normal maps just placed where the bump map goes in the shader? I remember sometime back trying it in the displacement channel LOL talk about slowing everything down to a crawl.
Yes. But instead of Texture Map, select Normal Map from the type dropdown.
gonna give notepad++ a try.
need to search and replace string 1,500 files
Free post-work program:-
http://fotosketcher.com/
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/2094281/#Comment_2094281