PDA

View Full Version : Is Mudbox enough good ?


Nemo2020
05-01-2012, 03:58 AM
Hi,

No troll topic, i'm just interested to learn mudbox thank to the PLE edition, but i was wondering myself if for movie/tv, mudbox is enough good to create REALISTIC characters (like Paul the alien of the eponym movie, iron man, hulk etc.) to then animate and rig in maya ? (not interested by art, demonstration etc. just a "create a character to integrate in a movie" purpose)

When i say "enough" i mean that people and CGI/VFX studios seem to swear majoritaraly by zbrush, telling it's more complete, more efficient, more realistic look and the only pro i always read for mudbox is the easy of use, which is by the way, in my opinion very important (especially that, after trying zbrush demo, it seems so complicated and a real mess)

Of course you gonna tell me: weta digital has used mudbox for king kong and LOTR, they obviously did...they created the software, so....
Even weta seem to have used zbrush for avatar.

Which studio used mudbox for creating realistic character for movies? What movie characters have been created with (except in king kong)?

Thx

oglu
05-01-2012, 08:53 AM
the artist have to be that good to create really good stuff, not the software...
mud or zbrush there is not much difference for "organic" sculpting...
its more an personal preference... there are some studios out there they use zbrush for sculpting and mudbox for the final details and baking... also a lot for texture painting in combination with mari...

a lot stuff for thor is done with mud...
here at min 23....
http://www.brameulaers.com/tutorials/generic_wall_tutorial/generic_wall_tutorial.html

also on tron...
http://www.danplatt.com/?p=187
http://www.danplatt.com/

tippet is using also mud...
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/killer-visuals-tippetts-god-speed-fx-for-immortals/

and cinesite..
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/Clash_of_the_Titans_Cinesite_Framestore_and_MPC/

framestore...
http://www.3dworldmag.com/2011/05/13/framestore-reimagine-dobby-for-deathly-hallows/
http://www.awn.com/news/visual-effects/framestore-puts-grave-face-harvey-dent


and in all those studios are also using zbrush...
use what ever tool you need to get the job done...
if you have the skill to do great charcter you will be able to do that in all sculpting apps...

atac
05-01-2012, 04:00 PM
Even weta seem to have used zbrush for avatar.

Actually Weta primarily used Mudbox on Avatar.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=167504&stc=1

Nemo2020
05-01-2012, 04:07 PM
weird, as i've read that avatar characters were made in ZBrush http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?79195-Avatar

atac
05-01-2012, 04:40 PM
The artist in that thread made some of the character design artwork for Avatar at Stan Winston Studio.

Nemo2020
05-01-2012, 06:13 PM
Ah ok. So it seems that mudbox can achieve amazing results too then :)

tmcthree
05-03-2012, 02:54 PM
Mudbox is good, no doubt, and its more intuitive. It seems to work in a way that is more reminiscent of the traditional 3d package environment and its colour work, texturing/materials are arguably better than zbrush, but it is buggy, it has one very very nasty bug (at least it did on the version I used a while ago) where changes you make on lower levels of subdivision don't propagate to higher levels which can and does result in hours/days of lost work.

Zbrush is by far the better product over all. Its more difficult to learn and there is significantly more to learn but that is largely due to the fact that it's a much more complete tool. It's hard surface stuff leaves mudbox standing. It's faster and has its own render.

If you're working on something which is within the toolset of both products then you'll be happy with either. But once you go beyond naked characters and want to work with hardsurfaces or clothing then you'll find that mudbox just can't really do it.

atac
05-04-2012, 02:05 AM
it has one very very nasty bug

I'm pretty sure that bug has been fixed for a while now. In any case, I've "lost work" with just about every software on the market. Everyone ships with bugs from time to time, unfortunately.

once you ... want to work with hardsurfaces or clothing then you'll find that mudbox just can't really do it.

Try using VDM stamps in Mudbox; they are *awesome* for clothing and hard surface. Different tools require different techniques.

tmcthree
05-04-2012, 02:20 AM
Well I'm glad to hear that bug has been sorted and yes its very true that all software has bugs, including zbrush.

But I couldn't disagree with you more regarding hard surface stuff. With the clip brushes, extractions shadow box, loop adding, and loads more, honestly, mudbox isn't in the same league, in fact to be fair it isn't even playing the same game.

tmcthree
05-04-2012, 02:28 AM
I forgot to mention to the OP.
This may or not be a concern to you but you also don't need much of a machine to run zbrush. To do anything interesting in mudbox you'll need a reasonable machine; equivalent to the sort of machine you'd need to work with a comparable scene in Max or maya. Whereas I've seen zbrush run well on a netbook.

atac
05-04-2012, 03:38 AM
I couldn't disagree with you more ...

Terence, what is there to disagree with? :) I haven't said anything about any other software. VDM brush stamps, such as the ones that ship with Mudbox, are awesome for hard surface and clothing. Applying a VDM to a brush tip is effectively like sculpting the tip of your brush, which enables you to easily produce the undercuts, overhangs, tight corners, hard edges, etc. that are so important for clothing and hard surface (as well as organic).

mudbox you'll need a reasonable machine

Yeah, the key is a decent graphics card. Any modern geforce should do the trick.

tmcthree
05-04-2012, 04:08 AM
Sorry atac, I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative, I don't mean to be. :blush:

I just thought that you were implying that the vdm brushes would put mudbox on par with zbrush for hard surface. To be honest I haven't used them but I am aware of the technology, so I can imagine (roughly) how they would work and I'm sure they work really well, but they;re competing with a lot of dedicated tools within zbrush so it's tough, but anyway, you know horses for courses.

OP The most important piece of equipment is the bit between your ears so whatever solution you choose, if you like working with it, you won't go far wrong with either. Both are very good and of course for hard surface work you are likely to have other software you can turn to, such as your primary rendering package, but for my time and money...well you know :thumbsup:

This might be a bit off topic but there are other sculpting solutions out there. I have a warm fuzzy feeling for blender which has a quite a complete sculpting module integrated into it. No hard surface stuff to speak of but quite a complete set of brushes and effects. It does struggle with very high resolution models but on the other hand, it is integrated into package so no need (necessarily) for any displacement shenanigans and a big plus is it's free!

R32
05-09-2012, 01:33 AM
Zbrush has been around for a lot longer and does seem to have the edge in modelling but what about texturing? Mudbox is great for painting and projecting textures at full resolution. Outside of Mari it looks like a great option for texture painting. Not sure if it's still the case (or ever was) but I thought Zbrush's texture painting was limited by screen resolution or polygon resolution.

oglu
07-03-2012, 10:33 AM
new article about spiderman...
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/spider-man-the-detailed-vfx-of-spiders-and-lizards/

Meloncov
07-06-2012, 06:10 PM
If you're just sculpting fine details onto an already fairly detailed model, the differences between ZBrush and Mudbox are pretty much insignificant. Where ZBrush shines and Mudbox struggles is building a complex character from scratch or from a very simple base mesh.

eng-omar
07-09-2012, 10:47 AM
If you confuse to use mudbox or zbrush then there is no problem ....bcz mudbox is too easy
to learn .... I learned the whole tools and menus in mudbox during one day ..... believe me
so I advise you to start with mudbox bcz its easy to learn and then if you dont see it perfect
start learn zbrush...
The users of zbrush always use mudbox to texture bcz its better in texture...

oglu
07-12-2012, 12:39 PM
more lizard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKuIb1bFoEQ

tmcthree
09-10-2012, 10:22 PM
It has to be said that mudbox is coming along though. It's racing ahead on the texturing front and they seem to be working hand in glove with pixar. Which means they should implement the open subdivision before too long I should think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-3L9BOTEtw

and, they seem to have (finally) implemented drivers for 3d connexion mice (zbrush still hasn't, and doesn't seem inclined to do so)
If they copied some of the hard surface tools, like extractions, clips etc. It would be an increasingly hard decision.

One the other hand, it seems to me that Zbrush "just" needs to give some love to the texturing side of things to confirm it's position as top dog in my mind.

Plus when you take into account the price and pixologics excellent upgrade policy....

But, the improvements in mudbox are looking interesting...

robinb
09-11-2012, 11:46 AM
I ended up buying both. They each have strengths and weaknesses and there seemed no end in sight of one developing the features I liked from the other. Now I just need the time to do some more projects.

Secret_Chiefs
09-11-2012, 01:15 PM
We often use both in production at Framestore. Mudbox typically for final sculpt detail and map baking, zbrush if we are doing conceptual work and for detail transferring.

Everything gets retoplogised in Topogun, then back to Mudbox for detailing and sanity checking.


But, I do find the projection and transferring of detail in ZB to be cleaner and less prone to artefacts than MB transfer details, and so simply export my current MB model into there, transfer, and then send back to MB on a layer. Zbrush is used for 'creation ' ie concept work, kit bashing as its subtools, transpose and dynamesh is a good way to flesh out a model



Mudbox can handle a higher polycount for a single mesh, I'm currently sculpting detailing at 22 Million Polys. Zbrush's sculpt HD is limiting, you can't edit the base mesh or reproject any details at all and preserve HD detail.

Detailing work often requires artists to zoom in/out and sculpt with the same brush. A massive downside of zbrush is that it doesn't natively preserve the brush size, so ,maintaining brush size whilst sculpting and moving camera isn't possible (albeit with a script you can download)


The final biggest win for Mudbox is simply that is supports 32bit displacements and vector displacements. You can assess and check that the model will displace correctly with the baked displacement map interactively. Zbrush, although it bakes 32bit, cannot import it and offer any sort of preview of the map you just baked.

tmcthree
09-11-2012, 04:10 PM
What's "sanity checking"

Secret_Chiefs
09-11-2012, 04:38 PM
A buzzword that I use for just making sure everything you output from your dept works for the next. Usually a combination of manually checking normals, mesh construction, UVs present....and so on..... or in the case of Mudbox, previewing that your map has no spikes, equivalent resolution, all details present etc etc

twosheds
09-23-2012, 01:43 AM
I never noticed this thread before now, but I wanted to comment on the Avatar thing...

It seems that pretty much every piece of software out there tried to lay claim to Avatar. Even Newtek tried to claim Lightwave was used on it in some useful capacity. :surprised

I'm not saying anything other than what it seems - that it's funny to read every software developer trying to use Avatar in hopes to get more sales.


As for Mudbox being "good enough"... yeah it sure is good enough, but it really could be better.
Autodesk realizes a package like Mudbox can be developed only so far before you can't do too much more to it, and so to insure sales well into the future years, they develop it slowly. Just enough to warrant maintaining a subscription or upgrading every year.

Personally I prefer ZBrush for high detail sculpting, but I'd rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of pliers than use ZBrush for painting. Mudbox, IMO, is far better for painting and map baking than Zbrush. Mudbox is also far more intuitive than Zbrush.

And of course, Mudbox is fully 64 bit and as such, can take advantage of as much RAM your system has in it, plus is OpenGL and GPU-accelerated... three things that ZBrush is not.

Like many people though, I use both, although I'd say overall I enjoy using Mudbox more than ZBrush, and often find myself using Mudbox to do something that I know I could do quicker in Zbrush. :D

jburford
10-04-2012, 10:48 AM
Not wanting to start anything, but some good reading TwoSheds on Avatar and Newtek.

https://www.lightwave3d.com/news/article/avatar-building-a-virtual-3d-art-department/

Can actually recomment to everyone to read through, is no less then enlightening. Interesting workflows.

twosheds
10-04-2012, 11:52 PM
Not wanting to start anything, but some good reading TwoSheds on Avatar and Newtek.

https://www.lightwave3d.com/news/article/avatar-building-a-virtual-3d-art-department/

Can actually recomment to everyone to read through, is no less then enlightening. Interesting workflows.

I've read that article before. I know how LW was used. It was essentially pre-visualization.

However, I remember Newtek seeming to try to imply that LW was used in far more capacity than it actually was. Going for name recognition. That's what marketing people are supposed to do - to use any and every advantage possible to cause people to want to buy a product, and, IMO, the way they tried to associate LW with Avatar was borderline misrepresentation.

Anyway, this is the Mudbox forum. I insulted LW in another forum, so what - you've looked up all my posts and are following me around now?
If you want to argue about it some more with me, do it through private messages, although note that I'll likely ignore them since I'm too busy for this.

tmcthree
10-05-2012, 12:22 AM
A buzzword that I use for just making sure everything you output from your dept works for the next. Usually a combination of manually checking normals, mesh construction, UVs present....and so on..... or in the case of Mudbox, previewing that your map has no spikes, equivalent resolution, all details present etc etc

oh thanks, btw, somehow missed your reply. :shrug:

tmcthree
10-05-2012, 12:42 AM
I'd rather pull my own teeth out with a pair of pliers than use ZBrush for painting. Mudbox, IMO, is far better for painting and map baking than Zbrush. Mudbox is also far more intuitive than Zbrush.

And of course, Mudbox is fully 64 bit and as such, can take advantage of as much RAM your system has in it, plus is OpenGL and GPU-accelerated... three things that ZBrush is not.



I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that the changes needed to bring the elements that are lacking in zbrush up to scratch, are simpler than those needed in mudbox.

So, it's maybe not simple, but converting a 32bit application to 64bit isn't necessarily a massive job. (possibly) :shrug:

Also implementing some direct texture painting tools can't be that hard, (can it?).

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but, mark my words, zbrush 5 will be 64bit and will have a completely revamped set of texturing tools.

twosheds
10-05-2012, 01:19 AM
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that the changes needed to bring the elements that are lacking in zbrush up to scratch, are simpler than those needed in mudbox.

So, it's maybe not simple, but converting a 32bit application to 64bit isn't necessarily a massive job. (possibly) :shrug:

Also implementing some direct texture painting tools can't be that hard, (can it?).

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but, mark my words, zbrush 5 will be 64bit and will have a completely revamped set of texturing tools.

I love Mudbox and I'd really like to see Autodesk do some serious work on it. It seems though that they're not even really trying to compete with ZBrush.

jburford
10-05-2012, 11:04 AM
I've read that article before. I know how LW was used. It was essentially pre-visualization.

However, I remember Newtek seeming to try to imply that LW was used in far more capacity than it actually was. Going for name recognition. That's what marketing people are supposed to do - to use any and every advantage possible to cause people to want to buy a product, and, IMO, the way they tried to associate LW with Avatar was borderline misrepresentation.

Anyway, this is the Mudbox forum. I insulted LW in another forum, so what - you've looked up all my posts and are following me around now?
If you want to argue about it some more with me, do it through private messages, although note that I'll likely ignore them since I'm too busy for this.


TwoSheds,
I take part in various part of the Forum hier @ CG Society, be it in the Blender portion, CG News, Speed Modelling, Lighting, Rigging, Lightwave or whatever.

And as a user, as much as you, I reserve the right to take part in any thread that interests me, and pass on in a professional manor any message the same as you or anyone else reserves the right. Or do you see it any other way?

I do not have time to play in any games (except when I kick up mx X360), but feel free to look over your shoulder as you think you need to.

Would like to address you "view of things", but will simply leave it at that.

alx
05-13-2013, 10:53 PM
thanks for all the insight on mudbox. i myself have been struggling with which one to stick with... but it seems like mudbox integrates easily into a maya pipeline ( at least easier than zbrush) ( i do love zbrush though)

anyways if your characters/objects are modeled from sctratch in maya anyway so they can be distributed early on onto the pipeline.. then its just finalization/refinement/high frequency stuff on the sculpting part... and this sounds (from what ive heard) to be more streamlined mud and maya.

specially if you need corrective Blend Shapes no?.


Well thanks again :D for all the insight and links.
kudos

cineartist
05-15-2013, 05:53 AM
There are some fundamental differences between Zbrush and Mudbox at all levels.

The only way to really know is to study what Zbrush is all about. You can download tutorials for free from Zclassroom.

Yes, there are some similarities in the most basic sense, given certain circumstances. But Zbrush by far out does Mudbox in everything from performance to the vast array of tools, brushes and techniques at your figure tips.

That's my opinion.

I do use and own both Zbrush and Mudbox.

Learning Zbrush is quite overwhelming. And by itself is a powerful modeling tool, just in the use of insert brushes alone and perhaps micro mesh. Nothing to do with resolution here. Just the powerful use of the toolset.

There are some things you can do in Mudbox the same as Zbrush by learning Mudbox. But there are somethings you can not do. And it is not limited to just building base meshes from scratch and so on. There is a plethora of tools available to you in Zbrush that Mudbox has not even approached yet.

The best way is to look for yourself at the tools available by doing as many tutorials in both apps as you can. Then make up your mind.

I like using Mudbox. But Zbrush is my go-to tool for all of the additional functionality I miss from Mudbox.

There is also a GoZ for Maya.

And I agree with the posts about using the strengths of both apps. I think an artist does himself a favor by owning and using both.

My opinion.

Nekotiq
06-08-2013, 04:22 AM
I think the main difference is Mudbox will always be more streamlined in terms of use, and Zbrush will always have more additional tools. Since Zbrush is promoted for a standalone program, and Mudbox is promoted as a supplemental program, with other products from Autodesk Entertainment Creation Suite. Because of that use, both programs will have slight differences in their offerings, but should still fundamentally be similar essentially.

sacslacker
06-14-2013, 09:42 PM
I like mesh generation and kit bashing in ZBrush. However, painting in Mudbox is FAR better (for me) since the layers just work and it's not poly painting which I have always had to fight for some reason.

With that said, I've seen some of the most awesome art come out of both packages and to think of how I did 3D 10 years ago makes me thankful to have both pieces of software. Even if I had one, regardless of which one, I would still be grateful for the features they've provided 3D artists.