I also did some tests with this great model, but I used my own eye model and textures. Unfortunately due to the max ray depth of 5 there are several intersecting parts on the eyes that have glass shaders leaving dark edges, which looks a bit weird. I did some tests using glass shaders only on the outer part of the eyeball and the eye wetness, and the dark edges were gone. So I desperately wait for the increased max ray depth in a future release:
https://planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,27241.msg270776.html#msg270776
I edited the existing maps and created my own reflection map. I also created distribution maps for the peach fuzz and the hair (which is a model I created in 3ds Max using the hair and fur modifier - afro was the easiest to create ;) ).
The fluffy shirt uses a very dense population of small white grass clumps.
The coloured part of the eyeballs use subsurface scattering as well.
That's pretty awesome, and smart idea about the fluffy shirt. I don't see anything amiss in the eyes, they're great. I did notice the small dots across the skin, what are they caused by? Too shiny bumps?
You are making great progress with new SSS feature, this is a really fine image. The set-up sounds a bit complex at this point, but the results are promising.
Nice! Good edit of the eyes indeed.
That's cool to see you move this forward. Great idea for the shirt, you could try the same thing but with some very short hairs instead. I would take you afro hair setup and make a small clump of that to replace the grass strand :)
Do you mind sharing the peach fuzz file if it's not too heavy?
All I have to say is WOW!
Thanks guys!!
Ulco, these are tiny little hair objects to create some peach fuzz.
And KyL, here they are. I used a white shader with white translucency and a reflectivity of 0.3, IOR 1.5, and a roughness of 0.5.
I used a scale of minimum 0.000225, and maximum 0.0007 for my image. And of course a distribution mask.
I'm quite happy with the shirt, but of course I'll try other things.
Very nice and promising result.
Too bad that there still is this dark line where the eye meets the lower
lid, but I'm sure you'll find a cure for that when the ray depth problem
has been solved.
Nice to see your progress,
keep experimenting.
Ah, that's peach fuzz!
I love the shirt, hah! Clever. The peach fuzz is a bit much, but cool that you're trying to simulate that. Otherwise the shading looks quite good overall. Nice progress, and looking forward to seeing what you get when you can increase Ray Depth.
- Oshyan
Wow - this is a big step forward in rendering characters!
Cool idea with the shirt! :)
Thanks guys! Doing some tests at the moment with indirect lighting to get rid of the nasty terminator.
A new attempt with a different lighting. I only used two luminescent planes (you can see their reflections in the pupils) to illuminate the scene, which makes the terminator nicely soft.
The peach fuzz is still there, and I didn't change anything on that, but with this lighting it's more subtle.
This is rendered with the latest alpha version, which has the ability to increase the max ray depth. Thus it's possible to render more than five intersecting surfaces with a glass shader assigned to without getting parts rendered black. I used a max ray depth of ten, and it had no noticeable impact on rendertimes. I noticed some unnatural lit parts inside the nostrils. I'll check that out. Maybe the volume density of the glass shader is not high enough?
...and I like the shirt or sweater or whatever this is...
Great! If you put some black lines on those lighting planes, you'll get a window-like reflection. I like the shirt too, you could even knit in some kind of texture :P
I still have problems with those peach fuzz tiny dots; I think they don't add, but take away realism. Otherwise a great update.
How are your decay, density and color settings, btw? In my latest I had density set at 5, color at 2.
Great! The lighting is much better!
Thanks guys!!!
"...color at 2..." Don't tell Matt, Ulco!! ;D ;D ;D
Here are my settings:
Definitely improved. :)
I was wondering why her skin always looked off to me, but i think I see way now. I don't know if it's just me, but it appears all her pours are inverted. Lots of "light" circles rather than dark circles for divots.
First, here is an an updated version with higher volume density and a bit of higher contrast (inside the TG render settings - no postwork). The nostrils look better now, I'd say.
Jordan, you made me think about the bump.
I did a test with negative bump, and I think the first version (positve) is the correct one. Sometimes there's a certain convex bumpiness (sort of small pimples) in some areas, especially on the forehead. The negative bump looks a bit strange, especially on the lips and nose. The difference is subtle, but I'll stick to the initial version.
Difference is very hard to see. What about the curved banding in the lower neck? Are they jpg artifacts or is it mesh?
Unfortunately it's mesh. Before I used the Emily head model I loaded it into Poseray, recalculated normals and also subdivided the mesh. It's still there, but a bit finer than before this procedure.
I'm not sure, but this problem has been mentioned as far as I remember, but I couldn't find this thread, and I don't know, if there was a solution for it.
Quote from: WAS on November 05, 2019, 01:44:21 PMbut it appears all her pours are inverted
At the moment I'm rendering another model, and I converted the included normal map to a displacement map (using Crazy bump and for testing Materialize as well). Unfortunately in some of the areas it seems both apps read the normal map's information wrong, so there are some parts that seem to be inverted. Maybe this happened for Emily's maps as well.
For my actual model I edited the created map in PS, and it hopefully will work.
I'd love to see TG supporting normal maps.
Quote from: Hannes on November 06, 2019, 08:17:28 AMJordan, you made me think about the bump.
I did a test with negative bump, and I think the first version (positve) is the correct one. Sometimes there's a certain convex bumpiness (sort of small pimples) in some areas, especially on the forehead. The negative bump looks a bit strange, especially on the lips and nose. The difference is subtle, but I'll stick to the initial version.
Though chicken skin is a dermatological condition, and not normal. You shouldn't see raised pores on the face. o.o When you invert it the skin highlights look realistic, even on the lips there is more lineage than splatter, which gives actual stretched skin appearance.
I think the inverted does look better, you should just think about adding actual skin imperfects than using inverted skin pores as imperfections. Small bumps for blackheads and whiteheads here and there, not all over.
Have to agree, inverted looks better in my opinion!
I also noticed, leaving the image open on my monitor and taking a step back cooking at about 15 feet, the overall highlights seem more photorealistic in the inverted bump, than the left non-inverted, which seems more soft and 3D ish with the highlights being not as defined/bright?.
I needed a long time watching and doing some speps back from the monitor to see it too, but in the end I think the negative bump looks more realistic.
The thing that I see is negative bump looks better everywhere except the nose. :D So maybe indeed some parts got inverted from the original conversion and some did not?
- Oshyan