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
Agree, all this stuff out there can be overwhelming. When I was looking at the UE2 for the first time, it was a sheer mayhem of parameters to me. :-)
I am glad if my explanations are helpful and being of some value to reduce the confusion.
Thanks a lot Mike, those were some insights I didn't know yet, even though I played around with the UE since some time now. Neever uplesed the environment image for example
You are welcome, Linwelly! Using the Environment Map is a very good option. I have to admit, in most of my scenes the UE2 is used as addition to the standard lights. More often in favor of a strong distant light and sharp shadows, the intensity of the UE2 is adjusted to lower values. The influence of the Environment Map also fades away with the intensity. So my preference to use an Environment Map changes back and forth. :-)
Mayhem of parameters...yeah, that about covers it! This is very helpful. Thanks for posting it!
I confess that I have gotten lazy. I rely much to heavily on a preset light rig to light a scene. I have tried to make a pact with myself to start doing it the long way. I prefer AoA's Light set..ambient, spotlight and distant light, so I usually light first with the distant and ambient light, (which is similar to UE2), then add highlights with spots.
But when you just want an overview of how a scene is coming along, a preset can save lots of time.
You are welcome, dHandle! The Mayhem of Parameters applies to the AoA Advanced Ambient Lights as well. :-)
Scott Livingston made some very good sequences of test renders with the AoA Lights to show the different parameters and effects: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/31426/let-s-learn-advanced-ambient-and-spot-lights/p1
You're absolutely right about that! AoA's lights are incredibly complicated...and versatile. Being able to turn surfaces off so certain lights don't affect them is brilliant! And now that I'm thinking about delving into UE2 lights, I have to ask...do I really want or need to add all that additional complexity to my already over-taxed brain?!
Obviously, the 2 systems of lighting are different, but are they different enough to warrant the extra work to understand the differences? What can one do that the other can't? I could spend a ton of time doing my own experimentation. But I'm assuming some of this work has already been done.
Is one easier or quicker? Are results superior in some way using one over the other?
I'm starting to love presets more and more...
click.
done.
I wish I would have all the answers to your questions. But the only thing I can tell for sure, there is a reason why the AoA Lights are labeled as the Advanced. ;-)
If someone did a serious sequence of renders to compare both lights, I am not aware of it yet. There is the very nice option to define a light radius in the AoA Ambient, but the opportunity of image based lighting is missing. And I am not sure if I totally understand how the surface flagging works and what all the different modes have to offer. Due to my lack of experience with this feature I can only guess. :-)
But if you already steped into the AoA Ambient Lights, the Occlusion Samples and the Shading Rate in UE2 are compareable to the similar parameters in AoA Lights. So you are not starting from scratch if you decide to learn UE2. The main advantage of the UE2, it comes with DAZ Studio. So PAs know you have it installed and they include Light Presets based on UE2 in the products. A lot of environments have it and sometimes characters. There are way more Light Presets available for the UE2, than there is for the AoA Ambient.
Please note, while it is possible to load more than one AoA Ambient Light to your scene, it is recommended to load only one single UE2 to your scene.
I put these renders in another 3DL lighting thread, then I remembered we were talking about lighting in this thread.
I don't remember all the settings, but I remember I used UE2 in one, and AOA's Ambient light in the other. The interesting thing is the change in the skin tone. One looks a little more dramatic with shadows, etc. The other looks a little more even, and like she has a fairly decent tan.
Is this a trick of the lighting, or is it supposed to do that? I didn't mess with SSS shaders or skin tones at all. Left everything at defaults except the lights.
That is a dramatic difference. Hopefully, MN-150374 or Linwelly or someone who knows a lot about 3Delight can give you some info on that. I keep intending on doing more stuff in 3Delight, but I've just been so busy that I haven't had time. I'm someone will pipe in soon with answer for you.
The AoA Ambient loads by default with higher quality settings. In the AoA Ambient there is a parameter Subsurface Samples, that is dedicated to the lights reaction with Subsurface Scattering. Since the default Skin Shader for Genesis2 Female is the AoA Subsurface Shader, I assume the AoA Ambient Light is optimized to enhance the subsurface scattering effect.
The subsurface reaction will influence the reflection of the skin and also what is called light absorbtion. Now it becomes scientific and if you are interested, you may look up the Fresnel Equations and why the absorbtion is important for the Specular Effects.
In the AoA Subsurface Shader itself there are also quality parameters called Shading Rate and Shading Scale. The AoA Ambient Light can be set to ignore the settings of the surface or pay special attention to it. I do not know what the default setting of the AoA Light does with those parameters. For me there it would be necassary to do further experiments. Everything I can tell about that would just be guessing and probably totaly wrong. :-)
While the UE2 Base with default settings and as the only light source will give you a splotchy lower quality render. There needs to be some parameter adjustments to raise the quality. UE2 was written when there was no AoA Subsurface Shader around, pretty sure it will handle this shader in a different way and probably does not pay special attention to the subsurface scattering effect. It will be recognized, but not enhanced like I presume for the AoA Ambient.
By default the UE2 will load in the mode Occlusion with directional shadows. You will also see slightly different results by changing only this mode to Occlusion with Soft Shadows or to the modes of Indirect Lighting. The mode Indirect Lightning with directional shadows is probably the highest quality mode, but definite it will increase the render time.
I don't own the AoA lights so I can not really compare between the two. The critical point about the AoA light has already been mentioned by Mike. The information about the Shading Rate and Shading Scale of the surface can be found here http://docs.daz3d.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/public/read_me/index/16324/16324_subsurface-shader-base.pdf and I found those to make a critical difference when using UE2 lights. Generally speaking will the exacteness of the subsurface scattering be higher with a lower shading rater wich results in a better quality for he render. Shading scale on the other hand simulates a higher translucency of your object, for a distance shot you can get away with a rather high shading scale resulting in a better render even with a higher shading rate and it takes less time to render. As well to be considered when talking about SSS is if you use pre or post SSS. For skin I prefer post SSS.
With the UE2 lights there is another thing to play around. As Mike said, it loads usually with occlusion/ directional shadow settings. I prefer occlusion / soft shadows, which will reduce render time again and I rarely had a scene that required directional shadows.
here is my lastest experiment concerning Subsurface. It was fun but there are still a lot of open questions.
While Linwelly was posting, I was editing my post mainly for readability and added few more infos. I can confirm, that UE2 Occlusion Mode renders faster than Indirect Lighting. And Soft Shadows are faster than the Directional Shadows.
The UE2 in Indirect Lighting Mode can be used as Standalone Light and is the better choice when it comes to Image Based Lighting. The Occlusion Mode is always meant to be as an additional light and should not be the main light in the scene. So Occlusion is the default mode, while Indirect Lighting can be seen as an enhancing feature.
Occlusion with Directional Shadows is probably the best compromise between quality and render time. If the UE2 in Occlusion Mode is not the prominent light. There is barely a difference between Directional Shadows and Soft Shadows.
Wow, there are so many tutorials and other resources mixed in with your great WIPs. Thank you for this thread. Bookmarked.
Thanks. I couldn't do this thread without great contributors. I didn't want this thread to be just a wip thread of just my experiments, but a place where I and others could share what we know and do some out of the box experiments on a variety of different topics that might not always fit in other threads throughout the forums. So far, it's been great and there have been some wonderful contributions by others, too. Which is good because people like MN-150374 and Linwelly know a lot about 3Delight and they help out whenever a question pops up about it. I have to admit that I still struggle with 3Delight big time.
I'm almost done with a few projects I got involved with and I'll be posting some results of some experiments I've done recently very soon. Hopefully, they'll be experiments that others will be interested in learning about.
Well, I've been busy, but I figured it was about time I posted something on my own thread! :) As many know, I have limited postwork skills which I'm trying to remedy. To that end, I study a lot of tutorials on YouTube and the Web for both GIMP and Photoshop hoping to learn some skills that will help me improve my digital art. One of the new things I've learned is that you can use all of the great filters and tools inside GIMP on small sections and not just the whole image. I always kind of thought that those filters only worked on images as a whole and was never really satisfied that I could fix one part of an image with a filter and then mess up something else in the image at the same time. However, using the selection tool has the benefit of, apparently, closing off the rest of the image from the results of those filters. Yeah, I'm sure most of you out there already knew that, but there are some of us postwork newbies that never thought of that!
So, I just uploaded an image to my gallery which I think turned out really well. I used a pair of jeans from Urban Survivors for Genesis 2 which I love because of the wrinkles and how the jeans look on the body. Unfortunately, I'm not really crazy with how the textures on the jeans looked in Iray. There was just something kind of artificial about them that didn't go with the look I wanted create for this image.
Here is my original image straight out of DS without postwork.
Edit: I wanted to add that each time I made a fix, I duplicated each image as a new layer and did my new fix on the subsequent layer. That way if I messed up, I could always go back to the previous successful fix. Layers are a great and powerful tool that I'm starting to truly appreciate. I'm constantly using them now.
First I selected the Free Select Tool.
I think some programs call it the Lasso Tool. It's the one that allows someone to select unsymmetrical shapes freehand. I used that to select all the way around the jeans making sure to connect the start point with my end point to close it off. After that, I used the Adjust Brightness/Contrast under the Colors Menu in GIMP to both darken the jeans and to sharpen up the texture a little.
Next, while the jeans still have the freehand select surrounding where I want things to be affected, I used the Clothify found in Filters>Artistic>Clothify. I believe this is one of the built in scripts that comes with the current version of GIMP. I've downloaded quite a few scripts for GIMP, though, so I'm not absolutely positive about that, but it isn't listed in the registry and that is where I usually download extra scripts. The GIMP Registry seems to be having problems lately and I don't know when they will get that fixed. Clothify does some things with Gaussian blur and sharpen and a few other things and when it is done, it leaves behind a more cloth-like texture. I found the default settings did not do what I wanted to I had to fiddle with the settings some, but I like the results.
So, the jeans weren't actually all that difficult to fix. One just had to know how to do a couple of things, but for someone who may not know where to start, I hope this helps.
The other thing I needed to fix in my image was the newel on the post in the railing. It did end up being very rounded and I could still see sharp edges where there shouldn't be any. I tried looking for solutions inside DS, but couldn't apply SubD or any other solution. I'm still learning about using those things so it is possible I just wasn't looking in the right places. The fix ended up being fairly easy in GIMP, too.
Here is what the newel looked like before the fix.
At first, I thought I could do something similar to the jeans by selecting it and then using blur to round it out, but I didn't like how that looked compared to the rest of the post. So, I quickly scrapped that idea as I would have had to try and blur that whole post to make it look good. What I ended up doing was using the Healing Tool. In Gimp, this is the one that looks like a couple of crossed band aids. You adjust the size of the selection circle with the brackets [ ] on the keyboard. The left one decreases the selection circle and the right one increases the selection circle. I made the circle the size I needed so that it would fit inside one of the 'squares' on my newel then, using Ctrl plus the left mouse button to select that section, I moved the mouse around to where each of the sharp edges were and 'healed' it by pressing the left mouse button everywhere there was a sharp edge I wanted to smooth out a little. It was perfect and I'm sure there are other better ways of doing this, but it was quick and easy and I'm happy with the results.
Here is what is looked like after using the Healing Tool.
If anyone has better ways of doing the fixes I did in GIMP, please be sure to speak up. As there is always more than one way of doing anything, maybe the way you do the same type of fixes will work better for someone else. Also, if you know how to do this in Photoshop and it might be nice to have instructions on doing something similar in PS, too.
Finally, here is what my final image looked like when I added it to my gallery page.
Very good work, Knittingmommy! The healing tool is one of my favorites to fix poke through. :)
While the Free Select Tool is fine to get a quick selection, for more complicated shapes the Quick Mask is a different and very helpful possibility.
The Clothify-Filter seems to be one of the GIMP Standard Filters. To get a huge collection of filters for GIMP I would like to point out the G´MIC Plug-In: http://gmic.eu/
Especially G´MICs Film Emulation Filters are great to get a huge variety of tint, look and feel: http://gmic.eu/film_emulation/index.shtml
Great job! The healing tool is one of my faves in photo shop as well. Very very useful for all sorts of things!
Yes, I love the Healing Tool. I think that Clone Tool is very handy as well. I've used it a time or two now, too. I've finally found a couple of tools in GIMP that I saw in a Photoshop tutorial that @Gedd had linked in Postwork Tips thread awhile ago. I'm definitely going to have to give the tutorial a try, too, because the technique, curving textures around shapes like cheekbones, looks quite useful, especially now that I'm exploring the possibility of creating my own custom skins. The technique starts at about the 5:00 minute mark in the tutorial. This guy does amazing work. So, trying this out has hit my To Do list now that I know where those same tools are in GIMP.
I answered a post that @Digitell created in the Commons asking about the possibility of morphing the Little Ones characters by 3D Universe. Since they are G3 based, they can use any of G3's morphs. There seem to be some hidden controls that prevent some morphs from taking over too much. I think that is mostly to prevent the Little Ones stylized look from breaking. Thanks to following @Algovincian's NPR threads, I've actually gotten some ideas for a children's book so I've been working on a couple of characters based on the Little Ones morphs trying to get a couple of more unique looking characters. They are still a work in progress and I'm working on my first actual render with them for the New User's Contest this month as the subject is Portraits.
I thought I'd post the images, here, that I posted in the Digitell's thread that shows a comparison of the original morphs by 3D Universe next to my characters that I've been trying to create. To quote my post for the New User's Contest WIP thread,
If anyone wants to see the actual WIP with Makenna and Toby, just click here and that should take you to my post there with my Makenna and Toby portrait wip.
The original 3D Universe morph is on the left and my character is on the right. The changes I've made in my character, Makenna, are subtle. I may make a few more changes to her, but I haven't decided yet what those changes will be. For now, I gave her slightly chubbier cheeks, moved the ears slightly, raised the brows just slightly and changed her lips and jaw line. I, also, gave her a slightly protruding little tummy.
And this is Toby. On the left, again, is the original morph by 3D Universe and on the right is my character. I made more changes with Toby. As well as changing individual facial features, I also, added in a partial of a full head morph that had a jaw line and pointed chin that I thought were just about perfect for how I envisioned Toby.
I'll post more images as I work on these characters. There are still a lot of changes that will be made to make them a little more unique. I haven't even started on their own skins, yet, but making slight modifications to their skins and hair are on the agenda as I continue to work on these characters. Personally, I think they've turned into adorable kids and I already have a few images in mind to help tell the story of these two best friends, Makenna and Toby, making mischief as only 4 year olds can. And after raising three boys, I have lots of real life antics from which to choose.
I have little doubt that your kid's book will be outstanding!
- Greg
Great info and renders!
Love the subtle changes you made! I am sure you will have some wonderfully cute stories to tell! I have a boy (all grown now lol) so I can just imagine. Ask me about the chipmunk sometime....
Thanks, guys! I'm glad you like them as they've been fun to work with. I did a render recently called Cookie Thief and it was the first time I managed to work with the Little Ones figures even though I bought them the same day they came out. While I wasn't completely crazy about how the image turned out, I loved working with the figure and I saw all of these possibilities for the figure. I'm still not all that great at the NPR thing, but I'm getting better at figuring out what works and what doesn't. I'll have to have a long chat with Greg sometime about the whole NPR thing. I've already learned a lot from the short chats we've had and reading his NPR threads.
I'm afraid I got carried away with the Tonal Rage product by DimensionTheory as I was having a blast with that thing. I've learned a couple of new tricks since making this on using the camera in really tight spaces. This was shot in the Northern Terrace Kitchen by David Brennan and ForbiddenWhispers. I probably had the most problematic camera angle with this shot! Even though I didn't totally love this image when it was done, I did manage to learn a few things during the journey of making it so I'm happy with that. I actually managed to do some postwork on the glass which I was quite proud of. Just look at those messy fingerprints! I even managed to put a small amount of chocolate foam on top of the milk. I know it isn't much, but it did kind of stretch my postworking skills.
Here's Cookie Thief:
Haha, that is a great idea. I've always wondered what use the little one could have but you made it work.
Super cute! I struggle with cute as I have no idea what to do with it but I enjoy looking at what other people do with it. And you post working skills are coming right along, I never would have thought to put messy fingerprints on the glass.
Thanks, guys! I started messing with the glass because the fluid in the glass was just too perfectly level. I didn't like how perfect it looked so I thought I'd just add a d-former and put a small dip in the liquid part of the glass. Unfortunately, I think some parts were hidden and I couldn't get the d-former to do anything other than raise or lower the length of the glass itself. There are morphs for the liquid, but all that did was raise or lower the liquid level as a whole. That glass is from Maclean's Everyday Drinks. Now, I love his stuff and I get it whenever I can because his products are great for those everyday items that really fill out a scene. Unfortunately, from my perspective, he does his props too perfect. I wanted to try and get that little dip ( the meniscus) that liquids get when they are just sitting there. And, also, chocolate milk usually has little bubbles from stirring. I tried all kinds of different things inside DS to try to do this and nothing worked so I had to resort to postwork. I used Ron's Suds for the bubbles inside the glass to help alleviate the perfection and then I got a little carried away on the outside with the fingerprints when I found some suds that actually looked like fingerprints. I had to figure out how to do my own gradient for the 'chocolate', but it wasn't that difficult because I found some YouTube videos for that.
As for the Little Ones, I love the look of them and I have a lot of ideas for using them. I like their quirky look that isn't quite real, but isn't quite cartoony either. 3D Universe calls them stylized. I guess that's as good a word as any. I can see potential in them. They kind of remind me of how the Family Circus and Dennis the Menace cartoons looked when I was growing up and reading comics. I just love their look. I keep seeing all sorts of images in my head with the 'kids' getting into all sorts of mischief and trouble. :)
Edit: changed the Dennis the Menace image because the old one didn't seem to work.
I said something about d-former difficulties in the New user thread, I can imagine that applies to this problem as well.
I'll go look that up and let you know. Thanks!
@Knittingmommy Love your work and the tips and tricks offered here are fantastic. I was curious about the Northern Terrace Kitchen, I just rendered it the other day and it took an extremely long time I thought for just the room with no characters and only the standard HDR for light, I also hid everything that was not seen in my scene. I think it took well past 20 minutes and I have a fairly powerful computer, (same stats as Novica's). I was wondering if you found the rendering time long also?
I don't remember exactly what @Novica is running, but I remember her rig was way better than mine and I think I remember that she was capable of GPU rendering. I know she gets a lot of pretty fast renders from her rig. I render CPU only so I'm slow before I even get started. My rig's fast for a CPU only rig and I don't do too badly for not having GPU, but I definitely take longer than those folks with a GPU setup. One of these days, I might be able to afford a decent card with GPU, but not quite yet. So, my stats will be skewed slightly, but, yes, it is an extremely long render for me, too. With my Little Ones character in there, my time multiplied. The render up above with the Northern Terrace Kitchen took a whopping 2 days to render, if I remember correctly. I have no idea what I had in that scene to render out so long. I have not tried rendering the kitchen by itself. I just set up the Northern Terrace Kitchen in scene by itself. No extras and I have it set to scene only with the window light that David Brennan and ForbiddenWhispers included with the set. So far, it's been going for about 1 hour and 9 minutes and is still extremely grainy on my system. I don't believe I have the maximum time set to zero so it will shut off after 2 hours if it isn't. I'll update and let you know how long it takes to render out fully on my system. I'm working through a tutorial in Blender today, trying to figure out how to use it, so I wasn't going to be using DS for awhile anyway. Luckily, my rig is good enough that I can still do some other things even with a render going full blast in the background. I would say, though, that compared to my system, 20 minutes would be a dream to work with. Really wishing I was GPU capable, but that isn't happening anytime soon.