PDA

View Full Version : Pelt Mapping


cmyk
09-18-2006, 04:35 PM
Cinema, I love ya... we've been through so much together. But this is a two-way relationship. We both gotta give 110%. Which is why I'm begging, nay, pleading for a UV Pelt implementation. You give me that, and I'll continue to fondle your polygons... even when I have a headache.

It'd make our lives so much easier. I want to use BodyPaint. Truly. But trying to make a UV map that works on faces (among other things) is like pulling teeth.

And now that we're being somewhat honest with each other, I'm feeling kind of inadequate around the other boys. All their 3D packages have pelt mapping. I just don't want them to look at you that way. It's not fair and you're better than that. Show them what you're really made of.

So, baby, sweetie, honey? How 'bout it?

Tank_3D_Attack
09-18-2006, 04:38 PM
I am with ya on that one CMYK ;) I am sitting here praying day by day that this will come! I bought SILO just because they announced UV Pelt tools with Version 2.0! Besides that...SILO has some awesome modeling tools/features.

However, I am hoping to see UV Pelting in BP! There are many programs out there that already have this feature (MODO, SILO, Maya etc) and Bodypaint seems to fall behind and looks outdated. I think it's time for a drastic change/update on the Bodypaint module.


Thomas

Rich-Art
09-18-2006, 04:42 PM
Take a look at UVLayout from headus.
This a real great UV unwrapper.
Link (http://www.uvlayout.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=38)

Peace,
Rich-Art. :thumbsup:

Tank_3D_Attack
09-18-2006, 04:48 PM
Take a look at UVLayout from headus.
This a real great UV unwrapper.
Link (http://www.uvlayout.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=38)

Peace,
Rich-Art. :thumbsup:


Well I am on Mac (no Intel). So I guess I can't use "UVLayout". Anything out there for Mac users in that direction? (Standalone version prefered).

Thomas

AdamT
09-18-2006, 04:50 PM
I'll second the UVLayout recommendation. AFAIC it's the best pelt mapper out there by a mile.

It would be nice if BP had this built in, but I'd hardly say BP is in need of a major overhaul. Aside from pelt mapping it's still far more advanced than anything out there. That's not to say that it couldn't be improved in a number of ways. It needs better path tools, better display of alpha/transparency, etc.

MJV
09-18-2006, 05:14 PM
I agree. No excuse really for not having pelt mapping already. Maxon settled for very mediocre UV tools to begin with and that lack of vision has crippled BP ever since, imo.

I am with ya on that one CMYK ;) I am sitting here praying day by day that this will come! I bought SILO just because they announced UV Pelt tools with Version 2.0! Besides that...SILO has some awesome modeling tools/features.

However, I am hoping to see UV Pelting in BP! There are many programs out there that already have this feature (MODO, SILO, Maya etc) and Bodypaint seems to fall behind and looks outdated. I think it's time for a drastic change/update on the Bodypaint module.


Thomas

cmyk
09-18-2006, 05:21 PM
Take a look at UVLayout from headus.
This a real great UV unwrapper.
Link (http://www.uvlayout.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=38)

Peace,
Rich-Art. :thumbsup:

Mac user. And I'm with Tank on maybe finding a 3rd party Mac app that works well, until Maxon can hear our cry... and answer!

ThirdEye
09-18-2006, 05:27 PM
Maxon settled for very mediocre UV tools to begin with and that lack of vision has crippled BP ever since, imo.

Aside from pelt mapping it's still far more advanced than anything out there.


So who's right? :)

AdamT
09-18-2006, 05:29 PM
We're both right. Other than UV mapping, BP is in a class by itself. In terms of UV mapping it's riding the short bus. :)

ThirdEye
09-18-2006, 05:39 PM
Ah sorry, i thought you were both talking about UVing in BP.

helluvapixel
09-18-2006, 07:16 PM
I but I'd hardly say BP is in need of a major overhaul. Aside from pelt mapping it's still far more advanced than anything out there.

Dunno about that. Large textures kill it, no display of displacement paint realtime, some rudimentary interface quirks that affect more the newbie but still shouldn't be there.

For painting textures, ZB is pretty damn close. Granted no layers for textures, but it could be coming.

AdamT
09-18-2006, 07:29 PM
ZB is cool, but as you say, no layers. Also no filters, no painting on flat tex (w/o going to PS), no paths, no transforms, and no decent UV mapping of any kind.

I know a lot of people would like to see displacement painting in Cinema, but I'm not one of 'em. I'd leave that up to the specialized apps like ZB and Mudbox rather than spend a lot of development time coming up with a half-arsed implementation like Silo, Modo, Hexagon, et al. It would be a major undertaking to match the specialized apps, which is why no one has done it.

Mylenium
09-18-2006, 07:31 PM
Maxon settled for very mediocre UV tools to begin with and that lack of vision has crippled BP ever since, imo.

Actually that blame must be put on the base program. Coming from other programs, I find it rather strange that C4D has no built-in UV tools and people are coerced into buying Bodypaint just for that, which in my case would be complete overkill - I do not paint that much (as doing tech-viz and motion graphics rarely require "organic" textures), but I'd surely appreciate if I could at least adjust UVs to some degree. You know, seems little point in having baking functions if you can't control the process...

Mylenium

helluvapixel
09-18-2006, 08:09 PM
I know a lot of people would like to see displacement painting in Cinema, but I'm not one of 'em. I'd leave that up to the specialized apps like ZB and Mudbox rather than spend a lot of development time coming up with a half-arsed implementation like Silo, Modo, Hexagon, et al. It would be a major undertaking to match the specialized apps, which is why no one has done it.

Adam, sorry I didn't qualify my statement. I am not asking for physical displacement sculpting. I just want to see the effect my painted displacement map has on the geometry (advanced openGL implementation required).

I agree, I don't want Maxon wasting time doing displacement sculpting, considering I find their modeling workflow quite clunky.

Shilts
09-18-2006, 09:01 PM
Actually that blame must be put on the base program. Coming from other programs, I find it rather strange that C4D has no built-in UV tools and people are coerced into buying Bodypaint just for that, which in my case would be complete overkill - I do not paint that much (as doing tech-viz and motion graphics rarely require "organic" textures), but I'd surely appreciate if I could at least adjust UVs to some degree. You know, seems little point in having baking functions if you can't control the process...

Mylenium

Couldn't agree more here. I own the XL bundle which to my mind costs a fair sum of money and still have no dedicated UV tools within C4D. Now don't get me wrong, I love the program, however, in all other apps for a similar price point (of the XL bundle) I can get built in UV tools that are mostly better than what I would get if I forked out for Bodypain even.

bunter
09-18-2006, 09:39 PM
this is OT but,

I always get put of by the UI in bodypaint, I find it really hard to get my head round. It seems to take the worst bits of photoshop and jam them into cinema's (mostly good) UI. I think the sky manager is horrible to use too. Anyone else think this needs fixing or do we just want more features?

Erik Heyninck
09-18-2006, 09:57 PM
If you don't own Bodypaint you can still use the UVmap and edit plugin by Ralf Sesseler:
http://www.ralf-sesseler.de/d3d/store/uvmap_en.html

And Spanki's tools do enhance BP's toolset.

I don't know as I never used it, but I can't imagine that that pelt mapping also has some big disadvantages. Like perhaps being "smart". And we all know what "smart" options do in the digital world:never what you want, or need.

MJV
09-18-2006, 10:06 PM
this is OT but,

I always get put of by the UI in bodypaint, I find it really hard to get my head round. It seems to take the worst bits of photoshop and jam them into cinema's (mostly good) UI. I think the sky manager is horrible to use too. Anyone else think this needs fixing or do we just want more features?

The sky plugin has the worst interface imaginable.

acmepixel
09-18-2006, 10:20 PM
I have the XL bundle, S&T, and BP2. Even with Zbrush I think BP is a requirement more than a luxury. Yes it adds a bit to the bundle price, but I understand Maxon's mindset. From their point of view BP is/may be a bigger seller than C4D. (the big studios all use BodyPaint, but I doubt if they have any Cinema seats). And they surely want to avoid diluting the revenue stream that BP brings in. But I also have LightWave 9 and I really think Maxon needs to come out with a BP ''Lite'' and include it in the Core. Kind of like LW does with Sasquatch..

Maybe Just a basic set of stantard UV tools in Core, not any paint tools or paint layers. I also agree that they need to keep up with new ''standard'' features that the competition has. But I'm sure BP 3 will match their bet and then raise it, too.
:D

ChrisCousins
09-18-2006, 10:31 PM
...I always get put of by the UI in bodypaint, I find it really hard to get my head round

Damn right. I really hate working in BP, everytime I end up swearing about something new. I do all my unwrapping in Modo now, takes a fraction of the time. It defeats me how someone can have looked at this:

http://homepage.mac.com/chrissyboy/Sites/files/help2.jpg

and decided that, yup, this puppy's ready for action! This is virtually unchanged in three years, I'd love to know what's coming, the interface needs redoing from scratch IMO.

Cheers - C

helluvapixel
09-18-2006, 10:33 PM
Does BP perform better as a standalone versus the module?

LucentDreams
09-18-2006, 10:44 PM
no, the moduel is much better than the standalone as you then get the benefit of all cinemas other tools outside that there is no difference.

helluvapixel
09-18-2006, 10:52 PM
no, the moduel is much better than the standalone as you then get the benefit of all cinemas other tools outside that there is no difference.

Thanks Kai, my only exposure is the module.

I suppose for now the best world is using modo/silo/xsi/ZB/uv unwrapper for 'quick' uv maps (if you choose to use pelting/auto UV). Then paint in BP.

One thing I've often wondered, if you use BP + auto UV it has + projection painting is there any big reason for pelt mapping. I suppose a pelt map will give a very readable and clean UV to use in Photoshop (or external painter), other than that???? Comments?

AdamT
09-18-2006, 11:11 PM
The only reason to use pelt mapping is if you want to paint on the flat texture. I guess it might also be necessary for some game applications?

If you only plan on painting on the 3D model you're better off with optimal mapping because it has less distortion.

LucentDreams
09-18-2006, 11:25 PM
well no entirely true, there will be less distortion with optimal mapping, btu also a lot of wasted canvas spacing (not that petl maps can't waste a lot of space too) The fewer seams the safer you generally are, Apps like ZBrush write their textures very well so seams aren't a huge issue, but any post processing can be problematic. Optimal UV's also face issues with procedural texture space shaders, and aren't easily transferable in apps that offering UV transfering solutions like GATOR in XSI.

All depends on your needs.

Optimal mapping will typically be satisfactory if all your doing is 3D painting or baking. Otherwise I"d recommend a well made UV that is readable to the human eye and easy to manage in painting apps, and has as few seems as possible.

When using pelting solutions the two key things tokeep in mind are the optimal edge cuts to get the best result fromt he LCSM and also choosing places that are less important in case there is a bad seam int he texture, like the under belly of a four legged creatue, or under a piece of armour etc.

xfon5168
09-18-2006, 11:46 PM
Thanks Kai, my only exposure is the module.

I suppose for now the best world is using modo/silo/xsi/ZB/uv unwrapper for 'quick' uv maps (if you choose to use pelting/auto UV). Then paint in BP.

Pavel Zoch sent in a Tutorial here on achieving a Pelt Map in Bodypaint on a head. It worked very well, do a search if you wanna find out, it's not a simple and easy as say Blender's Pelt Mapper, but it still gets it done.


One thing I've often wondered, if you use BP + auto UV it has + projection painting is there any big reason for pelt mapping. I suppose a pelt map will give a very readable and clean UV to use in Photoshop (or external painter), other than that???? Comments?

Very true acctually, with Projection painting, you can cover up all your seams like there's no tomorrow, very good point JClarke.

I picked up using bodypaint in no time, as far as half assed UI comments are concerned, I disagree. While I believe there are a couple of quirks, I think it's a UI that's simple and easy to use whether you use Cinema or you don't.

And Cinema does have some very basic UV editing tools, Kai did a neat little on Cineversity a while ago, and it show how you can edit your UV's in the Core Cinema Package (but doing it that way will make you appreciate Bodypaint very much.

helluvapixel
09-18-2006, 11:55 PM
I generally do mostly CAD rendering work so really it's procedurals all the way unless I need a decal. But I wonder if there is something to be had for using optimal mapping and then painting the textures for spec, bump, colour? This way strecthing/seams isn't to much an issue considering the details are mostly colour base and not so much patterns if you get my drift.

I'm looking for a good way to texture map for realism (I find this gives utmost realism) at a cost effective return due to CAD geometry being triangulated and not very efficient. It is a real shame that being NURB based that these highend CAD system to articulate the mesh export as quads (NURBS are quad patch based). But that is another topic, I bring it up for reference only.

imashination
09-19-2006, 12:04 AM
this is OT but,

I always get put of by the UI in bodypaint, I find it really hard to get my head round. It seems to take the worst bits of photoshop and jam them into cinema's (mostly good) UI. I think the sky manager is horrible to use too. Anyone else think this needs fixing or do we just want more features?

I think the Sky interface is horribly put together, in a way which doesnt match anything else in the program, so yes it does need fixing,

JoelOtron
09-19-2006, 12:58 AM
I think the Sky interface is horribly put together, in a way which doesnt match anything else in the program, so yes it does need fixing,

If we're on the bitching bandwagon--cant say the rendered results are anything to write home about either.

AdamT
09-19-2006, 01:13 AM
Yep, can't say I'm a big fan of Sky either. I get much better results with Ozone.

Continuumx
09-19-2006, 02:16 AM
I think the Sky interface is horribly put together, in a way which doesnt match anything else in the program, so yes it does need fixing,

The sky module needs an improvement in interface and it needs something akin to spectral lighting much like the kind we see coming for Vue6. I pushed sky as far as I could not too long ago, I got a lot out of it, but I could not get some effects and had to resort to use the fog feature instead of the cloud layers to get better effect. In fact, I would say dump the cloud layers and give more fog layers, as they are much more flexible and give 'mo' better' (better) atmospheric effects!

For BP, peltmapping and that DOODLE tool by per would be a big boost!

Mylenium
09-19-2006, 05:41 AM
I have the XL bundle, S&T, and BP2. Even with Zbrush I think BP is a requirement more than a luxury. Yes it adds a bit to the bundle price, but I understand Maxon's mindset. From their point of view BP is/may be a bigger seller than C4D. (the big studios all use BodyPaint, but I doubt if they have any Cinema seats).
:D

I don't see it this way. It's simply like someone completely overlooked that part in the base C4D without giving it a second thought. Even though I don't use C4D for poly modeling because I find it awkward, I have to admit that the toolset is quite complete. So the question is: what has stopped Maxon from making these tools aware of UVs and similarly allow them to manipulate them as well? Sorry, can't find other words, but it's completely moronic.

And to join in the bitching about: Maxon needs to rethink their module strategy. We wouldn't have such discussions if UV features were part of the base package as were at least some of e.g. AR's features. Compared to many competitors, a bare C4D looks pretty pale and incomplete, especially in the materials/ rendering department and since everybody needs this functionality (whereas not everybody needs MoGraph, S&T or other modules), it would greatly improve the "sexyness" of C4D for a certain kind of users.

Mylenium

helluvapixel
09-19-2006, 05:46 AM
I generally do mostly CAD rendering work so really it's procedurals all the way unless I need a decal. But I wonder if there is something to be had for using optimal mapping and then painting the textures for spec, bump, colour? This way strecthing/seams isn't to much an issue considering the details are mostly colour base and not so much patterns if you get my drift.

I'm looking for a good way to texture map for realism (I find this gives utmost realism) at a cost effective return due to CAD geometry being triangulated and not very efficient. It is a real shame that being NURB based that these highend CAD system to articulate the mesh export as quads (NURBS are quad patch based). But that is another topic, I bring it up for reference only.

To get back on track, regarding UV'ing (not bitching about Sky) does anyone have some thougths to what I posted?

darcbark
09-19-2006, 07:43 PM
You could always try wings3d. Here is a 6 page tut showing how to get a "pelt map" using wings.

Wings Pelt Mapping (http://www.quinlor.de/tutorials/fig_uv1.html)

xfon5168
09-19-2006, 08:09 PM
JClarke,

Pelt Mapping won't do jack for your CAD designs of you ask me. Pelting is a PITA if it isn't a human, or animal or something organic. Optimal Mapping, with Projection Painting as you suggested should work just fine for your work I think.

AdamT
09-19-2006, 09:10 PM
JClarke,

Pelt Mapping won't do jack for your CAD designs of you ask me. Pelting is a PITA if it isn't a human, or animal or something organic. Optimal Mapping, with Projection Painting as you suggested should work just fine for your work I think.
Good point; pelting is really only good for organic objects. Course some CAD designs do have organic shapes, so it just depends on the object.

helluvapixel
09-19-2006, 09:39 PM
Good point; pelting is really only good for organic objects. Course some CAD designs do have organic shapes, so it just depends on the object.

It might, but it imports with a mash of other triangles... so in the end the optimal mapping is the better choice. I am curious now how this will be like to work on considering it's easy to be dealing with multi-million triangle objects :D

BP was optimized yes? LOL

selfmadepixels
09-23-2006, 08:09 AM
Well the point is always the same...not what feature has a software but what features need the artist...and on this topic software houses are not the best listeners.
I know there's a development pipeline, a scheduled and busy way to release a new version every XXX period, but....we can suggest, the rest is waiting...the path is closed until the release date. :)
I remind C4D from vers 6, the steps done are pretty gigantic but....it seems Maxon has missed some pieces along the way....do we want to talk of the Project Management ? what is the command Save Project ? i could save by myself a folder with a Tex one inside...i've done it many times before without....i saw the Project Saving in XSI, and wow...i don't think it's so hard and mind-stressing to create a REAL directory structure like that...
...again, what about reference models or low-poly models helping to transfer animation rapidly to high-poly ones?
I don't want sci-fi features but the basis is cracking under the weight of all those modeules....give C4D a chance not to revolve around itself, like Lightwave was about to do....cheers ! :thumbsup:

ThirdEye
09-25-2006, 05:11 PM
I dunno if this has already been posted but it seems good and there's a non commercial version available for free

http://www.polygonal-design.fr/e_unfold/index.php

xfon5168
09-25-2006, 06:09 PM
Well the point is always the same...not what feature has a software but what features need the artist...and on this topic software houses are not the best listeners.
I know there's a development pipeline, a scheduled and busy way to release a new version every XXX period, but....we can suggest, the rest is waiting...the path is closed until the release date. :)
I remind C4D from vers 6, the steps done are pretty gigantic but....it seems Maxon has missed some pieces along the way....do we want to talk of the Project Management ? what is the command Save Project ? i could save by myself a folder with a Tex one inside...i've done it many times before without....i saw the Project Saving in XSI, and wow...i don't think it's so hard and mind-stressing to create a REAL directory structure like that...

What are you saying here? The Save Project is just simply a quick way to do have the folder, and the tex folder, and your c4d file in 1 click. Then you can just use the reletive path for your textures and this makes transfering your scene as simple as moving a folder around. It updates when you add more textures and save your scene. What does XSI do?

...again, what about reference models or low-poly models helping to transfer animation rapidly to high-poly ones?

You acctually can do this I believe. You make your high poly mesh and weight it. Have your Low Poly Mesh use the same Bone Heirarchy, and weight that, and animate that, and then you just use Mocca's Retarget Tag, to transfer the animation to the High Poly Mesh.

selfmadepixels
09-26-2006, 08:40 AM
You acctually can do this I believe. You make your high poly mesh and weight it. Have your Low Poly Mesh use the same Bone Heirarchy, and weight that, and animate that, and then you just use Mocca's Retarget Tag, to transfer the animation to the High Poly Mesh.

I'm not denying the powerful possibilities of Cinema, i'm only talking instead of some improvements that can be done to the basic core.:)
Uhm well...yes, i too believe this can be a way to do this, but i've to try the functionality of the process.
I've seen Reference Models in XSI and it's a powerful yet simple tool since it uses a sort of low-res model of the original one....without have to re-weight it!

What are you saying here? The Save Project is just simply a quick way to do have the folder, and the tex folder, and your c4d file in 1 click. Then you can just use the reletive path for your textures and this makes transfering your scene as simple as moving a folder around. It updates when you add more textures and save your scene. What does XSI do?

XSI prepares a directory structure for every possible element in the scene (particles, light maps, radiosity maps, textures, models and so on...) but i think that this is also related to the structure of the scene. :shrug:
XSI separates objects from scene (a bit like LW) also because you start by creating a project and give it a location on the HD where the soft reads everytime u open that project....it can be comfortable to have this in C4D, also for being managed in a network too, sharing all the resources in a collaborative manner (yeah, i know Alienbrain has a connection..).
It could be a easy way to manage assets that the soft can find anytime u need them on your machine and on a centralized server...without having to set nothing than your software.

ThirdEye
09-26-2006, 04:35 PM
XSI prepares a directory structure for every possible element in the scene (particles, light maps, radiosity maps, textures, models and so on...) but i think that this is also related to the structure of the scene. :shrug:

same about Maya, i wish we had that, i wouldn't lose pieces of my project around for sure that way.

flingster
09-26-2006, 08:25 PM
personally bodypaint should be part of c4d..but that would bump the price at the end of the day but its something you have to have really so can't understand why its a separate product..fine if you want to unbundle and sell it to users of other apps then go for it..but have it core for the rest of us its not like AR because you could choose not to have AR theoretically but BP surely everyone needs.

ThirdEye
09-27-2006, 11:31 AM
personally bodypaint should be part of c4d

who knows, let's hope they can do that, personally i agree, especially considering Modo now has a 3D painter

CGTalk Moderation
09-27-2006, 11:31 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.