When will DAZ have realistic skins?
This discussion has been closed.
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
I think most skin are made from real pictures and from what I see with default genesis textures, there is already enough baked in details.
Some people already told you, you have to learn lighning and shading. That is not just diffuse texture that will give you good results and there is no magic "make art" button yet. But that wouldn't be funny then
Here are three renders of default genesis textures. You can see there is a lot of details. On the LanaRR texture you can even see little hairs on her skin. But all these details are only good for portrait renders. Otherwise what make your render realistic is light and shading
I would say the principle to understand is "Garbage In, Garbage out". If what you started out with was ugly, what your going to end up with might be ugly unless you change it by time and distance to effect how we see it.
Lighting I understand.
The skins you demonstrated aren't bad, they are just UGLY. It's alright... on the outside, a lot of us are. Show whats inside on the outside.... I'm certain that if you dressed all those skins up and put them in a crowd at a distance, they would be the best things since slice cheese...
The problem here isn't realism... your problem is BEAUTY. We want the model and the centerfolds out front in our pictures, just like in real life.. Beauty presents a real problem because it requires an artist to create it and not everybody is a Rembrandt. It takes GREAT artist to make skins that are realistic AND Beautiful... that is rare to find. Thanks for sharing.
So you're not looking for realism....open your eyes and stop looking at photoshoped pictures
Oh my... that worked nicely. Thank you. It can be hard finding the right directions when you need them. Sooo....
That worked a real treat for me.. I'm where I want to be now so I'm deeply grateful for your help. Nobody has to agree but for me, this is what I wanted to see when I said photo realistic and done with Daz3d.
3Delight, default shader a mixture of my own lights and uberenviroment, to me.. proof realism is in the skin.
Is this one of those you feel is realistic? Which skin is it?
Real art isn't about you or me in my opinion.. it's about expressing something to everybody else. It's about giving other people what they need to see or what they should see.
You are the one that said, "But all these details are only good for portrait renders."
Personally, I say if you believe a thing to be true, you are right. So I'm thinking if you have a problem with what you've already done ... your own art... I assumed the problem is beauty.. but your saying that isn't a problem with you.. So now I have no idea what you want to complain about or if you are just showing off how brilliant you are.
Anyways.. great work. Man.. I'm irritated because the model I'm scrapping now looks like a transvestite... back to the drawing boards for me. LOL
Don't take life so seriously...
Oh and hey it was Milan from Danae 3D's Metro collection that I liked so much... Peace out!
That's a little unfair. It's possible to have a texture that looks realistic but still idealized, and even "perfect."
That's a little unfair. It's possible to have a texture that looks realistic but still idealized, and even "perfect."
I think we should be allowed to have a little fun with realism.. come on.. if we didn't then like some people say, we might as well get a camera and go take pictures... but there is a certain something ...
That's a little unfair. It's possible to have a texture that looks realistic but still idealized, and even "perfect."
There is nothing unfair. I demonstrated that there are already realistic textures with lots of baked details. Which is the answer to the thread.and I think it fits what is really researched
I have nothing against beauty but nowadays it's mainly artificial which is far from my definition of beauty
There is nothing unfair. I demonstrated that there are already realistic textures with lots of baked details. Which is the answer to the thread.and I think it fits what is really researched
I have nothing against beauty but nowadays it's mainly artificial which is far from my definition of beauty
The demonstration wasn't unfair, but implying people who find those textures unattractive aren't actually looking for realism was.
I think this is the crux of your issue but the saying still holds true, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. I think that is why so many people are careful to say, "In my opinion" because reality is subjective from one artist to the next.
I happen to love the Genesis 2f platform because of its shape capabilities that frankly, v4 was never going to match.. this new platform puts everything in our hands.
I think its good that we push each other and that we don't agree.. so.. you show me what you can do and show me how its better.. up for the challenge?
Here's a first attempt at getting something close to Danae's skin shader setup in DAZ Studio. This is the London texture, default on the left for comparison. Lighting is all neutral gray. The eyelashes are from Nyssa. I haven't touched the eyes yet.
I think this is the crux of your issue but the saying still holds true, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. I think that is why so many people are careful to say, "In my opinion" because reality is subjective from one artist to the next.
I happen to love the Genesis 2f platform because of its shape capabilities that frankly, v4 was never going to match.. this new platform puts everything in our hands.
I think its good that we push each other and that we don't agree.. so.. you show me what you can do and show me how its better.. up for the challenge?
Let's say I can go on with the demo
Here are two renders of LanaRR texture. One from close distance and tthe other from far. You don't see any texture details from far.
I found London to be a more difficult challenge myself but if you have a good skin to start with, you can make a wonderful finished product. I think from my perspective, the reason I love the G2 platform so much is the new shape controls that it allows you to have. A lot of people tend to forget that we are working in three dimensions and they try to make lighting try and make up for not having a good morph on the character.
Personally, I can't get my character to look like the artist but then I'm just using the skin over my own model that has a different shape since the provided V4 morphs never worked with Genesis. For me, I've been building Frankenstein girls all along.. a little from here and a little from there... London isn't my favorite but like many, it makes a good addition to a library if I want more than one character in my scene it helps to represent people of many different shades of skin.
This pic was Daz rendered. I found that lower lights tend to let the remarkable details of her skin shine through... those details help to fool the person looking on.. Just my thoughts, thanks for sharing with me.
Last part of the demo
Proper shading and lightning is what makes it look real. Whithout proper shading the boxer look fake and no texture is going to make it look real
[Edit} Side note : The Jeremy Textures are only 1024x1024. It's not even high res
I disagree with that idea... "In my opinion" .. When you pull away, you simply see different details. Now instead of just seeing pores and mircro hair, you see the larger variation of skin colors that I keep talking about are so important like the area at the bottom of the neck being slightly darker since sunlight tends to tan this part of the body. I agree with you about light but its rare that we find character skins that look good both close up and farther away where the details now change to if the top of the arm is tanner then the bottom. Skin for each character and person tells a unique story.
Skin texture and the characters morph or shape is just as important as lighting.
The pic is London rendered w/ DAZ3d and FW Ethereal light. :)
I disagree with that idea... "In my opinion" .. When you pull away, you simply see different details. Now instead of just seeing pores and mircro hair, you see the larger variation of skin colors that I keep talking about are so important like the area at the bottom of the neck being slightly darker since sunlight tends to tan this part of the body. I agree with you about light but its rare that we find character skins that look good both close up and farther away where the details now change to if the top of the arm is tanner then the bottom. Skin for each character and person tells a unique story.
Skin texture and the characters morph or shape is just as important as lighting.
The pic is London rendered w/ DAZ3d and FW Ethereal light. :)
I agree about seeing skin variation but that plays a minor role as people tend to make it disappear by adding SSS and other thing in the mix
From your renders I can say that the textures you have displayed do have all the details needed to make realistic renders. The point is there. Even with realistic skin you won't get realistic renders if the rest is not correct.
As for the shaping, it doesn't change rendering result (see pic under)
I just had a look at London. The promo pictures are stunning (even if I find the face is the only part well rendered), but it only proves that the artist knows how to properly shade and lightning if you compare to Agent_Unawares' and your renders
About your grief against using promo pics rendered in Poser, I'll just say that many artist use poser and know the shading and lightning system better than DS. And making a good render is a good way to sell. DS Rendering can yield as good result. It's just that the settings are not the same for Poser and DS and there is no easy way to convert
@snowpheonix, Have you looked at the gallery pictures attached to the products you are talking about in Rendo? If you notice, many if not most will look very weak relative to the promo pictures. These are good examples as to what one can expect to actually get on their own if they don't have a solid foundation in lighting and other aspects of tweaking the settings for a particular situation.
Take a look at this but read what Mark128 had to say about it as well as look at the image.
You are right, one day you will be able to get to that level right out of the box and all of the people who had to work to get that quality of image will have moved on to other challenges. But the thing you are missing is that this is not a DAZ specific issue, this is an industry wide issue. One has to work (or get lucky) in any environment to get the results you are talking about right now.
Think of photography. With the ubiquity of cameras, people are taking a lot of pictures now. For someone that takes a 'lot' of pictures they are going to have some amazing ones occasionally, ones that compete with what a good professional photographer would do. The difference is, they can't do it on demand or consistently. Your argument is one based on seeing this type of phenomenon and wondering why your phone camera can't take a great picture every time without having to understand the ins and outs of photography or post.
Just as an aside, I've noticed that it's not uncommon for PAs in some stores like Rendo in particular hire others to do their promo work. The PAs that do their own promos (from what I can tell) and do great promos also tend to do better skins, etc... as they have a better grasp on some of the finer points of what to put into the skins to make it easier to get great results. This of course does not negate anything I said previously however.
That's pretty much what I do. I often don't even use the eyes that come with a character, and I can't stand using presupplied character morphs 100%, even my favorites. Even if it's an existing person or character, still fun to put your own spin on things.
Hey, no dropping a comment like that and running off without details! What's obviously off about my skin shader settings? I do want to know as I'd like to get closer. That look has a certain charm to it.
@Agent : Not fleshy enough. Not soft enough and you don't see SSS effect that blurs details which adds to the softness. The highlights and shadows are too hard. There is not enough light which make the shadows dark. And the big detail : the ears
The promo renders give a sense of delicacy which I don't find in yours
So mostly camera settings, then. The promos all have DOF, which is what's giving that soft look [SSS too, but the blurring is much less on the in-focus areas]. I'll try brightening the IBL as well. Thanks!
What's wrong about the ears? If it's the blocky textures, I can't really help that; they're pretty bad unfortunately.
I'm throwing the towel in, I give up. LOL
Added in 2 more rigs for a total of 20 lights and rotated the camera. I may try later with a more basic skin.
Ok, fine, one more. Forgot to turn DOF back on in the last render, which doesn't appear to make a lick of difference atm.
I'm not sure what to say about that one. It's close but still seems off, kind of fuzzy. Is that shading rate set high enough that it's killing the details?
This is changed lights and DOF, and then a softer character morph. I think I may have to add a pure ambient light in, and change the main light to come from an angle instead of straight on. The SSS and highlights are getting blown out now as well.
I keep my shading rates at .1 or .2 (shadow bias on lights are also .1)
I'm going to try with this setup http://www.3duniverse.co.za/store/product/?DAZ-Studio-Light-Dome rather than a rig of a bunch of raytraced spotlights.
I decided to just focus on MM Tamesis' skin in it's default state since she (Surreality) seems to already have it setup in a fashion that would require a ton of lights as it is. This is what I got with default MM Tamesis and 3DU's 20 light rig (I set 4 in front to specular and turned shadows off on all of the rears). The red tint I believe is coming from the SSS maps on Tamesis since by default it's a dark red version of the diffuse (or looks it).
I wish she would come back to this thread. LOL
This is one of the most realistic renders I've seen. I thought it was a mis-categorized photo until it said London for V4. Of course, it was rendered in Lux and she's not quite sure how she did it. She did it by mistake. lol
It has some obvious issues in the arm/shirt area, but good grief.
http://browse.deviantart.com/art/Lady-In-red-384439085
By "accidentally/out of nowhere" He (Javier is a guy) means that he's not sure how he came up with the concept for the character. His renders tend to range from pretty good to great depending on the model and render engine he uses (sometimes he uses 3Delight, sometimes blender, and others Lux.)
By "accidentally/out of nowhere" He (Javier is a guy) means that he's not sure how he came up with the concept for the character. His renders tend to range from pretty good to great depending on the model and render engine he uses (sometimes he uses 3Delight, sometimes blender, and others Lux.)
Ah ok. Oops on the gender thing. I looked at the icon and not the name. lol
I had to really look hard at that image to notice it was even a 3D artwork. That is by far the second-most amazing, most realistic render I've seen to date, though no where could I find what software he used for it. As for which one gets first place, it's actually a child's portrait. which was rendered in 3DS Max using reference photos. Not using any Daz figures or textures though, so it doesn't really count here.
That 'Lady in Red' image is the sort of realism I aspire to. It's almost faultless.